Medical Mobbing Part Deux. The Prowling Professor Griffiths

Professor Rod Griffiths finally crept out and bared his decaying teeth like the large last great big bad wolf of medicine. The grandee of the old guard has spoken. We must therefore listen, take note then break into laughter. His post online is something I have to feature here out of fairness. It can be read here. Everyone deserves a defense - even big bad wolves.

Old Rodders claims to be a misunderstood man. Apparently, I have misunderstood him. The evidence on paper tells us a different story. Senior doctors always see themselves to be pillars of society that people should look up to. Old Rodders is no different. In all honesty, we don't think he is even fit to direct traffic and that was one of our submissions to the General Medical Council.

He was last observed prowling around at night without his Zopliclone tablets. Many of you can read old Rodders here. Clearly he has finally made his way onto the internet and is sashaying around with his CBE. Old men of medicine need to accessorize. He hasn't learned to justify his text or write properly yet but hey give it time. He may well create a blog well worth reading. As arch enemies go, Old Rodders was the most inept. I can't even say he would make a good James Bond baddy. His defenses were poor and his story kept changing from minute to minute. Old Rodders did not provide the GMC with ALL the paper work related to Ward 87. For Old Rodders, the line between the truth and a lie is blurred. He may have gone to a grammar school but position, fame and power have effectively made him into a male himbo [ the female version is called a bimbo]. This is what happens when the brain does not apply itself. Griffiths lost touch with reality a long time ago. I have this theory that when doctors reach a certain position of seniority and when other people do work for them, they become deskilled. This is what has happened to Griffiths. You can see this by the manner in which he responded to the allegations presented. The problem with Old Rodders is that he doesn't even realise what he has done. He has no idea of the impact of his actions. He currently resides in Worcestershire oblivious to the domino effect of his conduct. His comments to the General Medical Council was to influence the GMC totally in the year 2000. Following his damaging comments, the GMC have always been convinced that I was the one to be chased. Griffiths had the option of telling the GMC that Dr Monica Spitieri and Dr John Green [ Consultants responsible for Ward 87] should have been held accountable. Griffiths did not do this. Griffiths in his post on this website makes numerous comments about Ward 87. He plays up on his role in holding people to account.

Of course. his only role was to neatly cover up the truth. Of course, it has become a little messy for Griffiths these days. He doesn't say that he ever recommended that the GMC reopen the investigation into Ward 87. Indeed, if he had a conscience after all these years, that is what he would have recommended. He didn't. The public can therefore see his so called "concern" for those patients on Ward 87. Of course, Ward 87 could be any ward in the NHS. We have to question how many wards were allowed to function in a substandard manner.

As a few bad men go, Griffiths was probably the most inept. If you compare Griffiths to say Finlay Scott Ex CEO of the GMC - at least Fin is good looking, slithers away and writes striking emails to me now and then. With Scott, at least you have a certain respect for the sheer amount of wickedness that floats through his veins and lets face it Fin would have made a great James Bond baddy. Fin has better suits, sharper teeth and plots the downfall of others in style. Griffiths by comparison is just a reckless and inept man who actually felt he could get away with all he had done. My friends used to call him the Fool or the Himbo.

Griffiths is just the grubby old medical tramp that medicine sadly elevated up to the sky. I don't actually think the higher echelons of power know why Griffiths was elevated to Godlike status. It just happened. In the end, he relied on his CBE to get him out of a very tight spot.

My teeth grew to full length sometime back. I had my teeth in Griffith's reckless work for some years. Like a good well behaved Yorkshire terrier, I never let him go. Griffiths claims to have been worn down by my anti mobbing tactics. Everyone has choices to make, he could have chosen to correct his position and demand accountability for Ward 87. He didn't do so. The man had two solicitors funded by the Department of Health and large numbers of admin working overtime against just me. Even then, his team lost a Presidential Review at the GMC.

Griffiths posted on this website and is playing Mr Nice Guy. The problem with this old codger is that he essentially suffers from a perceptual misinterpretation of the evidence related to Ward 87. Both him and his entourage of lawyers lied repeatedly through the submissions to the General Medical Council in a complaint against him. At the end of it Ms Zahida Ramzan Asgar of the Department of Health must have had a nose as large as concord. I suppose Old Rodders would say that we can't call it lying because in their world, it is just a defence. The problem with the Department of Health Team representing Griffiths is that they had to use all their background influence to get the complaint thrown out. It didn't happen on the merits of their arguments. It happened because they all struck a nice cushy deal with the General Medical Council. These deals are done by understanding the establishments interests. The GMC dumped the complaint much like the biggest hot potato to hit this baking tray. Later I asked the General Medical Council why they violated their own directive in Henshall by non disclosure of the full 2001 Report. They had nothing left to say. Of course, there isn't anything to say when deals are done, agreements are made and decisions sanctioned to protect the establishment's interests. Griffiths was by no means an innocent man. It just wasn't in the GMC's interests to pursue the complaint. In the end, they both blamed each other like some bad playground fight between two grubby boys.

The GMC complaint against Professor Griffiths originated from Pal v GMC 2004 where the GMC admitted in a statement of truth that it was Professor Griffiths who had raised concerns about my so called mental health. Before he had done his precious audit on Ward 87, he was already questioning my competence, my ability etc. There is a memo showing this. The internal documentation by the GMC is actually quite shocking. The Department of Health internal memos are also quite shocking. Indeed, they show Griffiths prancing around like some court jester telling everyone that there was no evidence to the concerns I raised.

Griffiths created a cleverly constructed audit whose results were opposite to the ones in the Report done in 1998 and 2001. Essentially, Griffiths concluded that there were no evidence to my concerns. To date, he provides us with no explanation of why this was so. He failed to inform the GMC of two reports that verified my concerns. Even when the evidence was thrown in his face and plastered there with superglue, Griffiths failed to apologise for his audit or correct his position. To date, he has never corrected his negligent audit. He still stands by his work.

I was alerted to these reports by Dr Peter Wilmshurst who covertly discussed it over an angiogram with fellow cardiologist Dr John Creamer. Creamer stated that I would never get the report because I was likely to litigate against them as it was so damning. It should be noted that Griffiths did not disclose this 2001 report to me. I obtained it myself under the FOIA legislation. As it is, the full report has never been disclosed by the old men of medicine. Griffiths told the GMC that he had never had prior sight of the report yet he now claims to have been instrumental in the Trust taking action. The combination of pressures from the GMC complaint, the FOIA requests etc suddenly resulted in a mass of documentation land on my lap. Still a lot remains concealed from me. That is what Griffiths was good at doing - concealing everything from me.

Anyhow, here are the allegations at the General Medical Council before the GMC used Griffith's timely retirement as a excuse for not taking action against him. Rod Griffiths essentially got away to this retirement crypt without a stain on his character apart from the one I create now and then. Despite the flawed Griffiths Inquiry in the case of David Southall and his flawed audit in my case, Griffiths was never held accountable by the General Medical Council. In conclusion, in Griffiths case, a Professor can be negligent at his job, cost the lives of many patients, fail to report senior doctors on Ward 87 to the General Medical Council then float onto the wonderful meadows of retirement while claiming to be an innocent man. He can then show us all his bright Colgate smile with high definition sparkle and say " You can do it to, with a CBE".

And that is medicine in the United Kingdom. Where their whistleblowers are dragged through sham peer reviews. Where Professors like Rod Griffiths places the fragile careers of juniors in jeopardy and care nothing about the impact of his actions. Where the same Professor never apologises for his negligent actions. We should ask dear old Rodders, how many people were held accountable for all the good work he purports to have done. The answer is NONE.

There is of course an easy way to encourage me to terminate this type of blogging - that is simply to do the right thing. My view is this - as long as the right thing isn't done, and apologies are not issues and audits not corrected, this kind of blogging will continue against Professor Griffiths and the General Medical Council. They both piss in the same pot after all. Those disgusting enough to refuse to ignite the process of accountability do not deserve any respect at all.

Allegation/charge list at the General Medical Council. Read further here for details.

Professor Griffiths - Annex A
Case reference: HH/FPD/2004/1056

That being registered under the Medical Act 1983 (as amended),

1. In April 2000, you were a Regional Director of Public Health for the West Midlands;

2. You were asked by the GMC to lead an investigation into allegations made to it earlier that month by Dr Pal of malpractice and sub-standard facilities and care at the City General Hospital in Stoke-on-Trent (“the hospital”), especially on ward 87, part of the University Hospital of North Staffordshire NHS Trust (“the Trust”), where she had worked as a doctor;

3. In January 2001 your report concluded, broadly, that Dr Pal’s allegations were misplaced;

4. a. On 27 April 2000, in the context of your investigation, you met Sarah Bedwell of the GMC and made the following, or similar, statements:

“[Dr Pal] should possibly have been more competent and knowledgeable than she appears to have been.”

“It may be that some of the problems arose because her own performance was sub-standard.”

b. You made these statements even though you had not investigated Dr Pal’s performance as a doctor;

c. At the same or another meeting with Sarah Bedwell and/or other GMC staff you raised concerns about Dr Pal’s physical and/or mental health, although you had not investigated this;

d. All/any of those three statements were dishonest and/or reckless and/or careless because you had not taken reasonable steps to verify them or put yourself in a position properly to assess Dr Pal’s competence or knowledge as a doctor or her physical and/or mental health,

e. By making these statements, you purposely sought to undermine and/or discredit Dr Pal,

f. Accordingly, you acted contrary to paragraphs 34, 35 and 51 of Good Medical Practice;

5. a. Your report’s conclusions about the practices and the standards of facilities and care of patients at the hospital were wrong and you dishonestly and/or recklessly and/or carelessly misled the GMC in this regard,

b. In particular, no reasonable doctor could have concluded that EP had not been neglected while a patient (especially from reading merely her medical records): see, especially, page 18, paragraph 33b of New Doctor,

c. Your intention was to undermine and/or discredit Dr Pal rather than to consider the evidence and report objectively,

d. Accordingly, you acted contrary to paragraph 34, 35 and 51 of Good Medical Practice.

6. a. In a letter dated 17 January 2005, submitted to the GMC on your behalf by Zahida Ramzan-Asghar, it was stated in relation to the missing drip set needed by Dr Pal to treat Evelyn Price that:

“An alternative available to the Complainant (i.e. Dr Pal) was to call a crash team herself and not leave the patient. The crash team would have had a drip set and would have provided more experience.”

b. This statement was misleading as you knew, or should have known, that crash teams do not routinely carry drip sets and it is contrary to accepted protocol to summon a crash team when the patient is not suffering from actual cardiac or respiratory arrest;

7. a. Your report was flawed by an undisclosed conflict of interest as it was in your interests and/or the interests of bodies for which you worked for your report to conclude, broadly, that Dr Pal’s allegations were misplaced. The more your report was critical of NHS practices or personnel, the more likely it was that NHS funds would be withheld or limited;

b. In particular, the conflict of interest arose through, and/or was accentuated by, your close association with Professor John Temple (the then Postgraduate Dean of the West Midlands Deanery), your involvement with the Service Increment for Teaching (“SIFT”) Joint Planning Committee and the threat posed by Dr Pal’s allegations to the hospital’s planned application for Pre Registration House Officer (PRHO) rotation,

c. Accordingly, you acted contrary to paragraphs 54 and 55 of Good Medical Practice;
8. a. You and the Trust accepted that there had been some deficiencies in practices, facilities and care of patients at the hospital, especially on ward 87, although you considered that efforts had been made to address them,
b. Nonetheless you dishonestly and/or recklessly and/or carelessly failed to mention and/or stress those acknowledged deficiencies in your report,
c. Your report ignored and/or minimised these deficiencies,
d. Accordingly, you acted contrary to paragraphs 26-27 of Good Medical Practice.