Prehistoric BMJThe entire cyberworld knows that I have always had concerns regarding the stifling of free speech by Aunty BMJ. My posts from the year 2000 on Rapid Responses were peppered with these ideas. I describe the history here.
Matters were fairly bad pre Queen Godlee but have now become considerably worse. Queen Godlee of course dislikes challenge. I can't blame her really. When a lady is a feminist and as untalented as she is, it must be difficult to face criticism.
So, the entire blogsphere moaned about the BMJ's lack of rapid responses for the Dr Scot Jnr story. The BMJ wrote it in the BMJ careers section. If anyone observed the real magazine as I did, they would understand that if they blinked, they would have missed it. It was such a "small article" hidden in the folds of the pages of BMJ Careers that it was hardly worth writing. Even after writing such a small article, the BMJ could not "get it right" and printed a purposeful fib. A fib that was no doubt intended to placate the GMC.
So while iwantgreatcare.org was provided mass coverage in the real part of the magazine, Dr Scot Jnr was banished to a small part of BMJ Careers. Witchdoctor kindly covers it here.
Essentially, the BMJ had gritted its teeth and decided that they should weigh in to the Scot Jnr issue at the 11th hour. We had all finished the battle, we were all resting our laurels, eating chocolate and drinking coffee when the BMJ plus Private Eye presented us with their pitiful offerings. Their scraps thrown to the dogs was something the audience was supposed to be pleased about. This is known as a "token" offering by the medical establishment.
Dr Rant then raised the issue of stifling free speech on October 9th. On October the 10th Witchdoctor pointed out the anomaly of the missing rapid response posts.
By October 14th there were more than 7 rapid response posts. Amazing!? So how many responses did the BMJ ban?
So was the sudden presentation of 7 Rapid Responses all in one go more evidence that the BMJ are now prickly about criticism on the internet. Well, they should be because if I were the bloggers, I would put the entire journal out of business. It is a useless piece of recycled garbage, written by a useless writers and edited by a establishment ruled puppet otherwise known as Fiona Godlee [friend of Neil Bacon]. The BMJ is bad for doctors as it stifles their ability to think critically. No doctor these days is able to stay awake while reading the trash that is presented.
It seems that our moderators at BMJ Towers have decided to grudgingly present the Rapid Responses they had no doubt gagged for sometime. I could try and submit something but I know that every Rapid Response I have written this year under my name has been rejected. Every Rapid Response I have written for my colleagues has been accepted :). I just amuse myself regarding the BMJ. We should remember very acutely that the BMJ and Queen Godlee accepts posts from ex criminals but denies posts by whistleblowers. That is a fact of life that the BMJ's team holds a vendetta against me. My internal sources at the BMJ tell me this. In fact, they even tell me about the private lives of all those who work there. Fascinating listening to these issues. We could write a chapter of the Hello magazine with the gossip there. That is for another rainy day. BMJ Editors hand cramp has set in again because Queen Godlee is now in a quandary as to whether she ought to feature the fact that two senior deans are now part of a GMC investigation.
Emergency orthopaedic surgeons will be called in due to the increasing severity of this hand cramp in Queen Godlee's case. The main cause for concern is the fact that Queen Godlee has selective writing problems, she cannot type the letters "R.I.T.A". The London Wrist and Hand Unit is on the case.
Godlee's favourites are GMC investigated Prof Rod Griffiths, [Found Guilty by the GMC] Prof Owen Drife and ex criminal Penny Mellor. These are the individuals with such credibility that represents the creme de la creme of the medical profession. It is an established fact that the BMJ now cares nothing about credibility. Actually, what we ought to do is get some criminals from Strangeways and encourage them to post to the BMJ. As per the BMA's guidance on patients training doctors, perhaps they can teach doctors how to practise medicine. The best examples of "patient advocates" provided by the BMJ are Penny Mellor [ an uneducated housewife and a ex criminal] and Fiona Wollard - niece to Sir Charles George who thinks much like an upside down pineapple cake. Ms Fruity Twoshoes herself is responsible for colluding with others in reporting large numbers of doctors to the GMC , responsible for bilateral tampering of emails in Lisa Blakemore Brown's case and responsible for the failed complaint here. Those are the two "gobby" women offered by the BMJ as people who can " teach doctors a thing or two". Godlee does not develop hand cramp when representing these pillars of society.
Today though, I wanted to present a different tale of stifling free speech. The BMJ is spineless. We all know that. It has been spineless since Richard Smith left. In the past, it was just gutless. The problem with the BMJ is that they still assume they are leaders of the pack. It is a delusion of course.
Let us look at their dealings with Dr Peter Wilmshurst, known whistleblower on Research fraud. He is also a consultant cardiologist. He wrote an article called Institutional Corruption in Medicine . This was published by the BMJ in November 2002 and the original hosted on the internet [ but not by the BMJ]. So, we take a look at the BMJ's website. This is what it says.
Matters were fairly bad pre Queen Godlee but have now become considerably worse. Queen Godlee of course dislikes challenge. I can't blame her really. When a lady is a feminist and as untalented as she is, it must be difficult to face criticism.
So, the entire blogsphere moaned about the BMJ's lack of rapid responses for the Dr Scot Jnr story. The BMJ wrote it in the BMJ careers section. If anyone observed the real magazine as I did, they would understand that if they blinked, they would have missed it. It was such a "small article" hidden in the folds of the pages of BMJ Careers that it was hardly worth writing. Even after writing such a small article, the BMJ could not "get it right" and printed a purposeful fib. A fib that was no doubt intended to placate the GMC.
So while iwantgreatcare.org was provided mass coverage in the real part of the magazine, Dr Scot Jnr was banished to a small part of BMJ Careers. Witchdoctor kindly covers it here.
Essentially, the BMJ had gritted its teeth and decided that they should weigh in to the Scot Jnr issue at the 11th hour. We had all finished the battle, we were all resting our laurels, eating chocolate and drinking coffee when the BMJ plus Private Eye presented us with their pitiful offerings. Their scraps thrown to the dogs was something the audience was supposed to be pleased about. This is known as a "token" offering by the medical establishment.
Dr Rant then raised the issue of stifling free speech on October 9th. On October the 10th Witchdoctor pointed out the anomaly of the missing rapid response posts.
By October 14th there were more than 7 rapid response posts. Amazing!? So how many responses did the BMJ ban?
So was the sudden presentation of 7 Rapid Responses all in one go more evidence that the BMJ are now prickly about criticism on the internet. Well, they should be because if I were the bloggers, I would put the entire journal out of business. It is a useless piece of recycled garbage, written by a useless writers and edited by a establishment ruled puppet otherwise known as Fiona Godlee [friend of Neil Bacon]. The BMJ is bad for doctors as it stifles their ability to think critically. No doctor these days is able to stay awake while reading the trash that is presented.
It seems that our moderators at BMJ Towers have decided to grudgingly present the Rapid Responses they had no doubt gagged for sometime. I could try and submit something but I know that every Rapid Response I have written this year under my name has been rejected. Every Rapid Response I have written for my colleagues has been accepted :). I just amuse myself regarding the BMJ. We should remember very acutely that the BMJ and Queen Godlee accepts posts from ex criminals but denies posts by whistleblowers. That is a fact of life that the BMJ's team holds a vendetta against me. My internal sources at the BMJ tell me this. In fact, they even tell me about the private lives of all those who work there. Fascinating listening to these issues. We could write a chapter of the Hello magazine with the gossip there. That is for another rainy day. BMJ Editors hand cramp has set in again because Queen Godlee is now in a quandary as to whether she ought to feature the fact that two senior deans are now part of a GMC investigation.
Emergency orthopaedic surgeons will be called in due to the increasing severity of this hand cramp in Queen Godlee's case. The main cause for concern is the fact that Queen Godlee has selective writing problems, she cannot type the letters "R.I.T.A". The London Wrist and Hand Unit is on the case.
Godlee's favourites are GMC investigated Prof Rod Griffiths, [Found Guilty by the GMC] Prof Owen Drife and ex criminal Penny Mellor. These are the individuals with such credibility that represents the creme de la creme of the medical profession. It is an established fact that the BMJ now cares nothing about credibility. Actually, what we ought to do is get some criminals from Strangeways and encourage them to post to the BMJ. As per the BMA's guidance on patients training doctors, perhaps they can teach doctors how to practise medicine. The best examples of "patient advocates" provided by the BMJ are Penny Mellor [ an uneducated housewife and a ex criminal] and Fiona Wollard - niece to Sir Charles George who thinks much like an upside down pineapple cake. Ms Fruity Twoshoes herself is responsible for colluding with others in reporting large numbers of doctors to the GMC , responsible for bilateral tampering of emails in Lisa Blakemore Brown's case and responsible for the failed complaint here. Those are the two "gobby" women offered by the BMJ as people who can " teach doctors a thing or two". Godlee does not develop hand cramp when representing these pillars of society.
Today though, I wanted to present a different tale of stifling free speech. The BMJ is spineless. We all know that. It has been spineless since Richard Smith left. In the past, it was just gutless. The problem with the BMJ is that they still assume they are leaders of the pack. It is a delusion of course.
Let us look at their dealings with Dr Peter Wilmshurst, known whistleblower on Research fraud. He is also a consultant cardiologist. He wrote an article called Institutional Corruption in Medicine . This was published by the BMJ in November 2002 and the original hosted on the internet [ but not by the BMJ]. So, we take a look at the BMJ's website. This is what it says.
The article has not been retracted, but for legal reasons it has been withdrawn from the website. [10 Jun 2004]
Isn't that interesting. So we observe as follows
1. The BMJ does not specify "what these legal reasons were"
2. The article has been online and on the internet without any legal repercussions for some years now :).
So, there we have it, Queen Godlee using her silencer Again! Perhaps the BMJ Publishing Group should give her some time out to buy some Loreal. Most women feel better after a makeover - or so I am told.
2 comments:
Corruption damages the profession at a far deeper level than Godlee and her crowd of Godless friends realise.
Truth is reality. Truth is not a glorified poetic abstract. Truth represents the world as it is. When an institution hides the truth, it hides from reality. When an institution hides from the real world, it destroys itself.
Modern medical practice and the NHS, with its painkillers and antidepressants, is no longer in touch with diseases of the majority of the population and how people want to be treated.
For example, mental health instead of antidepressants - try diet and exercise; back pain instead of painkillers - try posture therapy; indigestion instead of Zantac - try changing your diet for a week, etc etc
Godless and co, by removing articles and by encouraging corruption, lies, bullying and harassment speed up the demise of medicine.
When something is no longer useful, nature and evolution have a way of bypassing it. The dinosaurs may have ruled the planet for many hundreds of thousands of years, but they were soon bypassed by quicker warmer blooded little creatures. Being large and cold, has its disadvantages!
They havent disappeared at all
Why?
10/10/2008 J. david leopold
Further to me previous response here, further inquiries have revealed an apparent anomaly. It seems that it was not Professor Paice who contacted Doctors.net.uk to advise of the scatological abuse of Dame Black on the site..quite contrary to the information seemingly provided to, and published by, the BMJ.. This whole matter raises serious questions about the actions and motives of those involved. Kind regards David Leopold Consultant Physician
Why?
08/10/2008 J David Leopold
This story is very worrying. And leaves serious questions unanswered. It had been my understanding that suspension was a last resort: to be used only when the safety of patients was threatened. Removing a doctor from the wards and theatres leaves gaps, which may prove hard to fill. Rightly or wrongly, Dame Black has been the object of widespread criticism over her part in the MMC debacle. Joining in abusing her, even scatologically , is hardly prima facie evidence of psychopathology, surely? The BMJ should enquire more deeply into this matter in everyone's interest. David Leopold Consultant Physician Swansea
The Lives of Others
05/10/2008 Dr Gordon Caldwell
So it seems that the NHS is becoming like the film "The Lives of Others" except with no good guys? Or 1984 where the children betray the parents? Someone reads something one does not like, and another ends up suspended. Surely the good and the great should not concern themselves with the opinions of the lowly?
Powers of suspension
05/10/2008 Jayaprakash A Gosalakkal
I doubt if this is a simple case of resolving issues related to "scatological language" which was disapproved by a dean. The London deanery says that the dean acted according to the GMC guidance. Such action would be unthinkable and has not been used when people (doctors) have used similar language against high functionaries including the prime minister on other Internet forums. The criticism levelled against the Chairmen of the royal college was apparently related to her work as a medico/politician in connection with the MMC.Though many of us would not use that kind of language there is the greater principle of free speech. There has already been a chilling effect in free discussion amongst doctors following this case. There is also the question about the facts. I am given to understand the forum moderators withdrew the "offensive" bits on their own accord. On the one hand the DH says that suspension should be used only in the rarest of rare cases where direct clinical care is involved or if the continuing presence of the said individual interferes with the investigations. We do not know where this case falls and how an opinion expressed in "colourful language" could be the basis of instant suspension. The Dean agrees that she initiated the process. Would this be considered as due process and legitimate under the DH recommendations or is there a conflict between the DH guidelines and deanery interpretation of GMC guidance? I think this case calls for a review of suspension powers and their exercise
does the...
05/10/2008 benjamin dean
I wonder, does the BMA have an opinion on this? It is strange that you quote a RemedyUK line and no BMA opinion? This silence speaks volumes in a BMJ publication.
Untrue statement
05/10/2008 Nick Martin
The statement just isn't true. The offending comments had been removed before the suspension. What grates for so many is that at no point was patient care affected by the doctor sounding off, the way some deans felt they had a divine duty to ride roughshod over another's career, and the complete unaccountability of these self elected autocrats. To undersetimate the depth of feeling against this blatant abuse of position - that would be a scatatolically bad mistake to make.
Central control, local blame
05/10/2008 Peter Gooderham
Dear Editor, Given the multiple shortcomings of MMC/MTAS, it is no surprise that some of those affected may make "scatological" comments. It is perhaps surprising that more doctors have not done so, although the grossly disproportionate reaction to this comment suggests that a climate of fear may suppress some dissent. Letters to the Chief Medical Officer for Scotland, and the Scottish Health Minister, have received responses to the effect that the decision to suspend the doctor were made by his local employer, not the Deans. This therefore looks like a case of "Central Control, Local Blame," so typical of today's National Health Service. Interests declared: Peter Gooderham retired from medical practice in 2003. He was a signatory to both letters mentioned above.
Post a Comment