The UnGodlee Hour

"Atypical"

This week, I have done well in relation to my chocolate supply. David Southall has sent me two bars to keep me going and a rather tall, dark, handsome stranger has sent me a collection of "Munchies". Chocolate types of course vary much like people do. Different chocolates make the world go round, different people make the world go around and different doctors should make the world go round. In the UK though it seems that there is one kind of doctor who rotates the spindle of the medical profession. The rest are marginalised.

Over this week, I have discussed a number of issues in relation to the medical establishment. It is also true that you have to be a certain "type" of doctor to "fit" into the mould. I also had a discussion with Kamran Abassi and discovered the fact that he too had developed the sort of tunnel visioned approach to problem solving. Kamran really is a kind of Chris Eubank of the medical profession. Desperately tries to fit in but the shade of brown doesn't quite allow him to merge. His conversation tones mirrored his establishment colleagues. There are many others like Kamran really. It is of course a sad time when you see that Kamran has indeed deserted his individuality in favour of being mentally cloned. Afterall, he has the desire to "belong". He fits the bill to belong in his pen of sheep. Thinking out of the box is not his cup of tea. His kind of thought processes are seen in many like him. For instance he says " There are many ways to change the establishment". Really? We then look back at the establishment created by Richard Smith and Kamran Abassi's reign and we see that there was never any improvement. Perhaps the lack of challenge and variation of ideas resulted in the establishment we have today.

Dr Neil Bacon is a product of this establishment. He is supposedly a model doctor who has overinflated ideas of his low status. Neil though is considerably worse than Kamran. At least Kamran has some insight. Bacon is of course one of those establishment posh snotty gits who walks the walk and talks the talk but when it comes to brain power, he is not all there. I know this because Bacon and I were locked in argument for some years. I should gloatingly say I am cleverer than Bacon - that would probably make everyone sick including me. Secondly, it doesn't take a lot to be cleverer than Bacon, the local lass at the council house down the road is cleverer than Neil Bacon. Bacon is all show, he is all cosmetics and no soul or depth. His ability to think laterally or imaginatively is lacking. His status is gained from who he has known and who he rubs shoulders with. His friends are Chris Bulstrode and Liam Donaldson - both with limited intelligence when it comes to real world issues.

Bacon is a vacant man. He sold his colleagues out and now he is making more of a fool of himself. He markets himself as "patient's champion" but seriously which patient likes Dr Neil Bacon??? That is the million dollar question isn't it? This "nephrologist" retains his dipstick status. He is deluded about patients adoring him - because quite frankly, no patient would like the sort of man he is.

And following the summary of the above, we now see why Fiona Godlee is his friend and why she supports him to the hilt. It is a sort of glint in Bacon's eye and the white flash of his jaws that makes Godlee drop her guard and feature his tatty little website iwantgreatcare. Godlee omits the dangers to doctors or patients.

We should note that the MMC Fiasco never commanded such a large article. We go back to our theory about the medical profession and class structures. Both Neil and Fiona are in their own fairy lands. They revolve in a higher intellectual sphere to the rest of us mere mortals. Indeed, they are so divorced from reality that they don't realise it. Doctors rights are being violated by the likes of Carol Black and Elizabeth Paice et al, and Fiona writes about Carbon Footprints. Seriously, who the f*** cares about Carbon Footprints when careers are being shattered?

Fiona Godlee got a taste of her own medicine when MedGadget printed an amusing editorial assasination. The article is an interesting read and here is an extract :-

As far as Dr. Fiona Godlee's involvement in the carbon footprint quagmire, Medgadget has conducted an online investigation into conferences in which Dr. Godlee is listed as a speaker, a lecturer or a committee member. What we can say is that Dr. Godlee is a "has been there, done that" kind of person. And we mean around the world, most likely in business class. Definitely not on a horse to IFSE-Rio Conference in Rio de Janeiro (2000). Not on a donkey to Freedom of Information Conference 2000, held 6-7 July 2000, New York Academy of Medicine, or to the 2005 Annual Scientific Meeting of the Faculty of Public Health in Scarborough, UK. How about an important BNF prescribing excellence conference in 2004 at the Commonwealth Institute, London?

It seems that Dr. Godlee fell in love with Italy by going to The World Association of Medical Editors Bellagio Conference 2001 (Bellagio, Italy, January 22-26, 2001.), and the same WAME Bellagio Conference in 1995 (.pdf).

Here's some more of Dr. Fiona Godlee's carbon footprint (via Google footprint) that threatens the blue skies of your children (always about the children, isn't it?):

-- Third International Congress on Biomedical Peer Review and Global Communications September 18-20, 1997 (Prague, Czech Republic)

-- Fifth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication September 16-18, 2005 (Chicago, Illinois)

-- BMJ Masterclass for GPs: General Update 2007 (scheduled in one week in Glasgow, Scotland)

-- History of the Social Determinants of Health 2006 (UC London 19-21 September 2006)

-- Defending the Integrity of the Biomedical Literature," an Epidemiology seminar with Fiona Godlee (April 4, 2006, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD)

-- ESF/EMRC Symposium on Prospective Registration of Randomized Clinical Trials (.pdf) (Tuesday 19 November 2002, Frankfurt Airport Conference Centre)

All this without mention of the conferences she attended as an audience member, or vacations she took outside her county borders.

The hypocrisy is always quite refreshing as elites (i.e. conference speakers) prescribe behavior to the huddled masses (i.e. conference attendees) that they themselves care not to participate in. It always falls to the aristocrat to say how, and to the proletarian to change the world as he is told.

So not only is Fiona Godlee guilty of double standards, of printing plagiarised material, of removing Peter Wilmshurst's editorial on Institutional Corruption and supporting dubious websites like iwantgreatcare, we wonder whether she is even capable of editing a leading medical journal. At least those of us who hated Richard Smith probably loved some part of his cute personality. Godlee is Elizabeth 1 straight out of BlackAdder. She hasn't a clue about real life, real doctors, real patients and the world. At least Richard Smith tried to find out what was going on around the UK. Whether or not he was misguided, he still attempted to back professionals in trouble eg Peter Wilmshurst.

Take the BMJ this week. Is there anything relevant to the world of medical politics today? No of course not. Is there anything interesting? Nope. And is there anything about the subject of free speech in the medical profession. No! And is Fiona Godlee going to get over her cramp and report the fact that two senior Deans are currently subject to senior investigation? Of course not. That is because it is in the establishment's interest not to have information like that circling around. The days of BMJ control in medical politics is nearly over. Its editor makes no statements and has no leadership skills when it comes to fighting for the rights of junior doctors.She lacks teeth and lacks backbone. It is also clear that no one who is " atypical" can rely on Fiona Godlee to represent their interests. For Fiona, the world may die around her but Carbon Footprints will always be more important.

As junior doctors are the vast majority of the medical population, they should be catered for. Fiona though is quite happy to cater for the retired, those who sip tea on the BMA's leather sofas and procrastinate about the world. So Fiona caters for about 20 percent of the medical profession. What happens to the 80 percent? Perhaps they exist on Remedy UK? To give Fiona some credit, she has represented the old ones in PACA. PACA and Jonathan Gornall both being deluded about the value of being in the BMJ these days. David Southall is still of the view that being in the BMJ adds Kudos? Does it? His nemesis Mellor ruled the world through the media through one website while the BMJ paled in comparison and failed to protect him. That said, all the material written on Southall is now password protected on the BMJ. Of late, Fiona thought it was a good idea to have " research" articles accessible for free. Errrrrm, who reads the research articles then? Not the public! Yet again, this shows a complete lack of insight into the importance of " public access". The BMJ clearly cares nothing for the public and continues to write articles for their club members who can only have access to the articles! How does patient communication with doctors improve again?

This attitude of lethargy propagated by the BMJ reaches the likes of the GMC. JD questions who regulates the regulators. Well, if the world of committees is anything to go by, both the BMA and the GMC share similar interests. These "interests" are always "protected". The reason the GMC has become so dysfunctional is not due to Finlay Scott, it is due to the ingrained medical influences that have penetrated the Council. Wilmshurst detailed this in his paper.

It is also due to the lack of senior support and action. I shall use Professionals Against Child Abuse as an example. A group of men who simply talk. They write letters, they do many things but what they don't do is sort the problem out properly. They are about to go to present their material to the Health Select Committee which will be much like the MMC issues. There will be no accountability or solution. The other issue about consultants is that they do wallow in a world of their own. Because they are consultants, they are of the view they "know it all". Of course, they don't and that is why medical regulation is such a disaster. People have talked about the incompetence of the GMC for many years. The GMC though flourishes from day to day with their protection cloak of the Medical Act. There has been no real challenge to the heart of the council.

I am told that Peter Gooderham is due to provide a speech on the General Medical Council. Peter is a theorizer and he is also a good friend of Dr Jennifer Colman [Sedley] [who regularly discusses matters with friends of Scientologists]. Peter's speech is due next week at the Birmingham Medicolegal Society.

Peter Gooderham advised on the case here and here. We can therefore see why he is an Expert on matters related to the General Medical Council. It will of course be all theory because Gooderham actually has never won a case against the GMC himself. Gooderham is said to be a closet fan of nhsexposed.com. He is a closet fan because he often fails to respond to emails sent to him from nhsexposed. Perhaps we should be grateful for his praise or perhaps we don't actually need it :). There is a view from the hill - expressed recently by Kamran Abassi and Peter Gooderham that a trickle of acceptance is something I should be grateful for. Another " bless you my dear for you have sinned but we accept with this small token" :) - but we will keep you at arms length :). Well, from where I stand, the appreciation for our work comes from the hundreds of members of the public who write and email. When you have that, Gooderham and Abassi pale in comparison. They really do. I am not one to gloat about achievements or popularity because that isn't what our websites are about. They are about raising issues of vital importance.

So as I say, there are those who simply "talk" and there are those who " do" . The entire medical establishment is filled with people who " talk" and this is probably the reason why the quality of care for junior doctors is rather poor. It is also why the Deaneries, the GMC and the Royal Colleges have all ruled without accountability. And it is also essentially why the majority of the establishment watched while Dr Scot Jnr sank slowly.

So for those who have rather kill joy views about my referral of Paice and Needham to the General Medical Council, they should remember that the aim is to try and demand accountability - whether we succeed or not is entirely down to luck. It is certainly better to try rather than sitting around and watching while Dr Scot Jnr was sinking. In any case, this move was essential for the protection of Dr Scot Jnr's human rights. Human rights are important, if each of us don't fight for them, we become like the lethagic establishment that has ruled over the years. The kind of establishment that would watch their own friends die without lifting a finger.

The lesson to learn here is this - no one should sit around watching while their colleagues sinks. That is not the reason why we all became doctors. We are not meant to be PC - we are meant to take action in an emergency.

Person Peter Gooderham

Right click for SmartMenu shortcuts