General Medical Council (GMC)
[back]

[Allopathy Inc kangaroo court for getting rid of dissident thought.  Notably exposed by Martin Walker with the Wakefield GMC Hearing 2007-10.  The truth is kept at bay by the government propaganda (lies) put out through media lackeys, see The Greek Chorus.]

See: Persecuted doctors 

Wakefield GMC Hearing 2007-10

Dr Jayne Donegan Fitness to practice hearing 2007

[Jan 2008] My Experience with the General Medical Council by Dr Jayne Donegan, MB

[pdf 2004] SCIENCE COURTS, ABUSES OF BUREAUCRATIC AUTHORITY AND AUTISM A Critique of the Institute of Medicine’s Findings and Process in Vaccines and Autism

Quotes
So the GMC has become an instrument of the public health apparatus for persecuting doctors in an effort to prevent them dissenting about vaccines and vaccine safety, and who knows what will happen next to Richard Hamilton, will he be next?  This is extraordinary to Americans, absolutely extraordinary because in America you have the first Amendment, you have freedom of speech, you want o say something, you say it, in this country, no way.  The idea of prosecuting a doctor because he has said something, given his opinion, offered his advice, said what he truly believes, it is absolute anathema to Americans.  They can't understand how this could possibly happen in a civilised world, and yet here we have it. [2010 April. Video] Dr Andrew Wakefield - In His own words

I am very pleased that they paid my legal fees, the case cost over one hundred thousand pounds to defend, I could never have financed it myself.  The GMC is not a court, so even if you win, you don’t get any of the costs back, so when the defence bodies defend a case, for them, it is just money down the drain. This gives the GMC carte blanche to accuse anybody they like of Serious Professional Misconduct as they never have to pay for anyone except their own team if they are wrong. http://www.jayne-donegan.co.uk/gmc  Dr Jayne Donegan, MB

   Where dies it leave the GMC if you are not guilty?   Very good question on a very broad front.  They have some tough decisions to make.  One on the level of the case itself, and have they misinstructed their experts, are they going to have to retrench in a different set of charges.  They have to take time to structure those charges and get a response from their experts.  Are they going to be allowed to do that, I don't know, but it must be becoming obvious to them now that much of the original information they were given, was, had been, misconstrued, and basing their charges on that information has been in error.
    At another level they are under big pressure from the Department of Health, and David Salisbury in particular has been calling them on a regular basis urging them to prosecute this case more vigorously against me, be nastier, be meaner, throw more in, and I know this because we get sent the unused material, and so I took the opportunity (he didn't know this, I mean you get all the telephone conversations, all the conversation between people, all the draft reports which is an interesting advantage to us), so I was able to write to David Salisbury and was able to say I am now in a position to have read the unused material from the GMC, and I note your entreaties to them....He was furious, he contacted the GMC and said: "I didn't know they were going to get the unused material...you never told me, this is a disgrace!"   And the wonderful thing about that is that we get the documentation of that telephone conversation as well (laughs).
    So, you can see they are under a great deal of political pressure to prosecute this case and it is interesting in the public domain David Salisbury has said we don't want this to be seen as a vendetta on behalf of the Department of Health.  So, mixed messages. 
    PART TWO. The other dilemma they have is who do they represent in the end?  Because the GMC have historically stood for the patient, the patients rights, the patients protection from, for example, medical malpractice.  Well, who do they stand for now because we stand for the patients.  Everything we have done is in the best interests of the children.  What they are representing and prosecuting is not on behalf of the children no parent ahs complained agaisnt us, but on behalf of the Department of Health, on behalf of the new kid on the block, 'the greater good.'  
    So here we have a body who has traditionally represented the patient, the victim, if you like, against the medical profession or againts medical malpractice.  Now they are defending the diktat of public health against the rights of the individual.
So they are in a real quandary, or if they are not they should be, about quite who they represent, because I know who I represent--the individual patient. [2010 April. Video] Dr Andrew Wakefield - In His own words Question 3

There are no words to describe the findings of the General Medical Council (GMC). All I can say is that none of us should be surprised. The stakes had escalated far too high for the British medical establishment to countenance any other outcome...... The GMC proceeding is a frightening and thoroughly modern form of tyranny. It makes you shudder to think what Stalin or McCarthy might have accomplished if their public relations had been more skillful and better organized.
    The extremity of the GMC’s verdict--all three men guilty on all counts—lays bare any pretense that the British medical establishment cares one whit about the welfare of its patients. Let’s put in perspective the actions at issue here. No children were harmed and no parent or guardian has complained about the care these three men provided. In fact, the procedures involved were routine, the resulting treatments standard and the careful attention to gastrointestinal illness in autistic children has recently been endorsed by a consensus statement published in the journal Pediatrics (no friend of the autism community). Considered in this light, the GMC hearing process stands exposed for what it is. It was not about medical standards. It was not about evidence. It was not even civilized.  It was, rather, a naked exercise in intimidation, a fateful moment of moral decision in which the medical industrial complex exposed its ruthless, repressive essence. They are a frightening bunch and their conduct here raises issues well beyond autism. [2010 Jan] Naked Intimidation: The Wakefield Inquisition is Only the Tip of the Autism Censorship Iceberg By Mark F. Blaxill

[2010 Jan] The UK GMC Panel: A Sinister and Tawdry Hearing By Martin J Walker  Nor do most people understand that in Dr Wakefield's case, the complainant was journalist Brian Deer, the only person in the world to lodge a formal complaint against Dr Wakefield. Deer is published by the Sunday Times, and what do the public know about the secret ties of researchers, journalists and newspapers with the vaccine industry or any other industry. In 2009, the owner of the Sunday Times, James Murdoch was given a place as a non-executive Director on the board of GlaxoSmithKline the MMR vaccine manufacturers.
...As for judicial proceedings, your average Mary or Joe, sometimes fails to think beyond the fact that if it's the law or the regulation, then it must be right and if a person is brought before a court or a hearing then the probability is that they have done something wrong. They rarely think of the fact that in this case, the GMC brought the prosecution, hired and paid the prosecuting counsel, the jury and the jury chairman (a one time holder of shares in GlaxoSmithKline) and the legal advisor to the panel, that they administered the trial and held it on their own premises. The GMC - a little state within a state, but with far greater vested interests than any but the odd remaining Stalinist enclaves.
....Charges were first muted in 2004, the year that the claim of over 1,000 parents against three vaccine manufacturers, that had been proceeding over ten years, was suddenly denied legal aid. The Appeal against the withdrawal of legal aid was heard by a judge whose brother was a non-executive director of GlaxoSmithKline and the managing director of Elsevier, publishers of the Lancet. Dr Horton the editor of the Lancet gave heavily disputed evidence at the hearing and was allowed not to appear a second time to answer serious questions about this evidence. Dr Wakefield was to have been an expert witness for the parents at trial, the GMC hearing has meant that he will no longer be countenanced as an expert witness in Britain and will find it impossible to get funding for further research.
....Both the government and the pharmaceutical companies in Britain deny any possibility of vaccine damage. In order to carry through the prosecution the GMC argued that the children Dr Wakefield, Professor Murch and Professor Walker Smith saw at the Royal Free Hospital, were not ill or suffering from Inflammatory Bowel Disease. This massive campaign to distort the truth has left thousands of parents bereft of medical and other help for an array of illnesses brought on by the MMR vaccination.

UK’s GMC, Dr Jayne Donegan’s Story, Vaccines & MMR Here is the shocking story of how Dr Jayne Donegan was victimised by but won against the UK  General Medical Council and members of the UKs Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and all for giving accurate and truthful evidence in Court about vaccines and their hazards.

 After the case had been effectively dismissed and the parents had been awarded costs against Essex County Council on 9 December 2003, the parents lodged an official complaint with the General Medical Council (GMC), against Dr. Aloke Agrawal and Dr. RN Mahesh Babu. Despite the GMC’s own medical screeners confirming that the paediatricians had a case to answer, the GMC decided not to take any disciplinary action against either paediatrician. However, after much badgering, the parents discovered that the GMC had clandestinely agreed to accept blatantly false and incorrect ‘defence documents’ from both paediatricians and had agreed not to inform the parents of this secret arrangement. When this was brought to the attention of the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence (CHRE) , the overarching regulator of the GMC, they learned from the CHRE, that an anomaly existed that prevented the CHRE from being involved in such cases. The regulator in effect was no regulator but a passive onlooker to victimisation of the public by GMC members, in this case and a whole class of other similar cases. The Gulag Of The Family Courts by Jack Frost

[Jan 2008] My Experience with the General Medical Council by Dr Jayne Donegan, MB However, the GMC was not going to make life easy for me.  I live in London.  The GMC  is based in London. I am the sole care and supporter of two children whom I also home educate.  The GMC therefore decided that the case would be held in their offices in Manchester.  They even tried to schedule the case for May 2007 – right in the middle of GCSEs.  It would be bad enough trying to do GCSEs if your mother went off to a different city for three weeks leaving you to fend for yourself even if she weren’t home educating you, how much more so when she is your teacher as well. I had to get a letter from Education Department of Barnet stating that I would be in dereliction of my duty to educate my children if I went way and left them at such a time.
...............It is notable that under cross examination on Day Two, Dr Elliman was forced to concede, that there have been no randomised placebo controlled trials of any of the vaccines in use in the last 20 to 30 years where vaccinated children are compared with unvaccinated children given an inactive placebo (sterile water or normal saline). In the one placebo controlled trial that he cited for MMR, the ‘placebo’ contained, amongst other ingredients, neomycin and phenol red.  Neomycin is listed in the British National Formulary as ‘too toxic for parenteral (by injection) use’.
.........Evidence for the safety and efficacy of all these vaccines come from epidemiological studies which are by nature controversial, and which do not satisfy the criteria for scientific proof.......
    I took my Medical Indemnity Organisation’s very strongly worded advice not to talk to the media. As all their cover is discretionary I felt I had no choice but to follow this advice. As a result there was very little coverage or publicity given to the fact that I was completely exonerated and some of that which was reported was incorrect.  I am very pleased that they paid my legal fees, the case cost over one hundred thousand pounds to defend, I could never have financed it myself.  The GMC is not a court, so even if you win, you don’t get any of the costs back, so when the defence bodies defend a case, for them, it is just money down the drain. This gives the GMC carte blanche to accuse anybody they like of Serious Professional Misconduct as they never have to pay for anyone except their own team if they are wrong.