BMJ. You have to be White, Middle Aged and An Establishment Whistleblower

Sharp Suit. White Face. BMJ Backed

The problem with reading newspapers at 5 am in the morning is that there is a huge risk of choking on my cornflakes. Liz Miller introduced me to this choking effect. It is often developed when utterly shocked at certain statements made by the various publications and the media. A few weeks ago, I asked why the medical journals were so slow in raising concerns on whistleblowing. We asked why no medical journals backed whistleblowing doctors within the NHS. Well, the BMJ have apparently been slow to react but better late then never. I suspect, Fiona Godlee felt her Carbon obsession had come to an end and it may have been a slow story day.

Now, the history between me and the BMJ goes back centuries. We have to go back to old bats like Richard Smith and Kamran Abassi and their attitude to junior medical whistleblowers. Richard Smith backed Andrew Wakefield 100 percent. Indeed, there are column inches dedicated to him. That was his whistleblower of choice. Andrew was white, middleclass, wore tweed jackets, smiled at the camera with that Colgate twinkle. We remember the days Richard Smith hailed Andrew Wakefield as a whistleblower undermined by the establishment. Indeed, Richard crowed so much about it, it was amazing. No crowing now though because Richard has done a U turn since Wakefield has ended up at the GMC. Isn't it amazing how fickle ex BMJ editors can be.

By comparison, there was me - a junior doctor whom few people paid any heed to during the early days. I had gone to Richard Smith and repeatedly told him about Ward 87. He summarily ignored me. When the evidence filtered out, he ignored me then as well. That was the sole reason for commencing http://www.nhsexposed.com . I was a bit tired of tolerating this behaviour. And sure I resented it. Why shouldn't I resent it? The leading medical journal ignored junior doctors concerns, failed to raise issues on the failure of supervision and continued as if Ward 87 never existed. People were dying and Richard was into personalities. I didn't quite fit in. I was that little different - different sentence structure, outspoken. I am a little uncomfortable for the BMJ. Someone who never quite went away and continued to question them.

So what have the BMJ featured instead?

For a start we have to congratulate Fiona Godlee and team for allowing the anti msbp group the oxygen of publicity. Rapid Responses were directly responsible for David Southall's downfall by the mere nature of connecting people with dubious alliances. Of course, while giving these vexatious GMC complainants the oxygen of publicity, they ignored the real concerns in the NHS eg patient deaths.

So that is the BMJ all over for you. When Fiona Godlee came to the helm of the BMJ, she believed what the rest of the world said about me including Dr Neil Bacon. We have to admit the Doctors Only website and their connections did a fantastic job of character assassinating a whistleblower. I noted that this Doctors Only website supported Margaret Haywood. The reality of course is that it has never supported any whistleblowers.

The BMJ has spent years banning anything I have written even innocent comments on Rapid Responses. Cleverly, colleagues posted comments on my behalf to test this and low and behold what I wrote under their names was published! You have to laugh really because the BMJ is so predictable. You have to understand the BMJ, it has a committee controlled by those with vested interests. One such large amphibian is Dr Brian Keighley, a man with a dubious personal life but nevertheless a doctor on the committees of both BMA and GMC. These dual interests have an influence on how editorials are featured and what is written.

The Telegraph featured the BMJ piece recently. Yes, we know that the whistleblowing story is milked dry until journalists have to squeeze what little they understand of it into a new format. And this is what you see in the Telegraph. Nevertheless, we must applaud Fiona Godlee with a slow clap for finally coming to terms with the world's view that only one whistleblower exists in the entire NHS. That person is Margaret Haywood. The BMJ states

"An editorial in the journal warns that the "next" hospital scandal like that of Stafford, where up to 1,200 patients died as a result of poor care, is "probably already happening" because staff are too frightened to speak out"

We have to ask ourselves some salient but uncomfortable questions about the BMJ? Where were the BMJ when Ward 87 happened? Where were the BMJ when the evidence came out for Ward 87? If the BMJ had done their job, would more than 2000 people have died in Staffordshire? Is it so uncomfortable for them that after 10 years, I was proven right. Just happens that I don't quite fit into to the "victim whistleblower role".

Then we have to ask ourselves what the Telegraph did in the year 2000. Yes, we know they had substantial amounts of information provided to them by Amit Chaudhari, their then journalist. What was it that the Telegraph had to say - to quote the editor here " It is all very medical and I don't understand it. Dr Pal probably has a axe to grind?" So we have to ask ourselves whether the deaths of 2000 people may have been prevented?

So, yes let us question the conduct of these publications and be outspoken about it. Let us ask about the role of journals and the media in raising important concerns. Let us ask whether they play a role in actively silencing whistleblowers - they certainly silenced me. Lets say something uncomfortable and tell them that North Staffordshire was about 10 minutes away from Stafford. In the old days, it was all run by the same health authority. So, lets ask why the medical media walked passed Ward 87 in 1998?

And these are uncomfortable questions that no one wishes to respond to do they - Fiona, Richard, Kamran and the Telegraph editors? Because in the end it is all about assessing personalities, character assassinations and degrading whistleblowers - as opposed to understanding what they are trying to tell you :).

2000 plus people are dead aren't they Richard Smith? What is your role in it? :)