More DailyStrength
Health Event Calendar
See what's new on the site
Step-by-step Tutorials
How to use DailyStrength
We're on Facebook
Check out our page
Follow us on Twitter
Read our tweets
Get Cool DS Stuff!!!!!
Shirts, Hats, Baby Wear
Watch this 
View More Posts Ignore
Hello all,

Here is a letter from Dr Sarah Myhill which she has asked me to circulate as widely as possible.



Dr Sarah Myhill MB BS, Upper Weston, Llangunllo, Knighton, Powys, Wales, UK LD7 1SL
Tel: 01547550331 Fax: 01547550339 E-mail: Website:

Newsletter 14 September 2010
Dear All,

I have just received a further summons from the General Medical Council for a further Interim Orders Panel Hearing to be held at the GMC, 350 Euston Road, London on Thursday 7th October at 9.30a.m. The GMC have sent me 3,718 pages most of which are your wonderful letters and a full print out of the on-line petition.

There is only one new piece of evidence which is a GMC commissioned Expert Witness report into the website complaint. It appears the B12 complaint (from the Partner’s Practice) has not been investigated further as there are no witness statements nor Expert Witness reports. My aim at this hearing will be to have all the charges against me thrown out. So what are my chances?

In my favour
The GMC commissioned an Expert Witness report into my website in which the Expert Witness concludes:

“For all the reasons given above, in producing her website and giving information and opinion I consider that overall Doctor Myhill’s actions are appropriate and of a reasonably competent standard. In my opinion it is difficult to clarify the role Doctor Myhill has. She is not acting as a GP in producing her website. In my opinion it is fair to say that on the evidence available Doctor Myhill is acting as a reasonably competent doctor providing free advice and opinion”.

With respect to the Partner’s complaint where I recommended B12 injections I have demonstrated to the GMC the following:
1. The Partner’s Practice has told lies. This I pointed out to the GMC at my first IOP Hearing but they chose to ignore it.
2. The GMC themselves misconstrued the evidence and got their facts wrong. As a result of a Data Protection Act search I find that my case was drawn up by a member of the GMC legal team who, in the letter of instruction to the GMC Expert Witness Professor Bouloux, described me in the male gender and as a “consultant anaesthetic” (sic). It is difficult to imagine how one can make four mistakes in three words but this has been achieved with merit! The rest of the account of my dealings with the Partner’s practice together with my past history with the GMC is similarly flawed and shot through with inaccuracies.
3. The Expert Witness report by Professor Bouloux is entirely based on the GMC’s version of events. He simply copied and pasted this account. In failing to check the GMC’s version of events from the original source information, by failing to be an expert in the subjects on which he opines and by rushing through his report at the last minute, this report is similarly flawed.
4. GMC sanctions are without logic or consistency. Because I recommended a B12 injection, my rights to prescribe all medication from British National Formulae were lifted. This is in contrast to the Jane Barton case (29.1.10) who was found guilty of professional misconduct for the death of 12 patients by morphine. She was investigated by police for the deaths of 92 patients. She simply lost her rights to prescribe morphia drugs for three years. As one of my colleagues commented – lucky she did not inject B12!

I have taken the following actions:

5. I have reported the Partner’s practice to the GMC for investigation of dishonesty, I have reported the GMC legal to the GMC Complaints Department and also to the Bar Counsel for incompetence, I have also reported Professor Bouloux to the GMC for failing to act competently as an expert witness.
6. The GMC continue to take patients’ notes without their knowledge or permission. I have reported their actions to the Information Commissioner.
7. I now have three letters of apology from the GMC for withholding information from me and not meeting deadlines with respect to the Data Protection Act. I have reported the GMC to the Information Commissioner for these breaches.
8. I have written at length to the GMC with many of the above concerns and others with specific detailed questions. The majority of these questions have been ignored but I shall be raising them at my IOP Hearing.

What problems I face from the GMC
A GMC IOP Hearing is not interested in facts nor the veracity of facts. They appear to be able to act on suspicion.
The GMC have not, as I can see it, made any investigation for themselves with respect to the veracity of facts.
The GMC can award themselves up to eighteen months to consider a case before calling a Fitness to Practise Hearing without apparently giving any reason.
There appears to be nobody to whom I can appeal with respect to GMC actions.
It is clear that many other doctors have received similar treatment at the hands of the GMC – they too have been subject to sanctions which lack any logic or consistency.
The GMC have complete control over the activities of the IOP – so for example I have requested that the Partners’ practice attend my Hearing, as should Mr S Jones who complained about my website, as should Professor Bouloux together with various officials from the GMC. My guess is that the GMC will refuse these requests.

I expect to be strung up again by the GMC at this next IOP Hearing but I shall put up a good defence!

What I shall be doing between now and my Hearing
I intend to publish my defence before the Hearing and I shall make this defence available online.
I shall not be represented but I shall conduct my own defence.
I am not making any plans for a demonstration outside the GMC. I was so grateful that people came to support me in April, but very aware that it was a very difficult day for many sick patients because the GMC would not admit them into their foyer and they had to sit outside in the cold being poisoned by traffic fumes of the Euston Road! I really do not want a repeat of that.

What you can do
I would be so grateful if you would again write to the GMC by letter or email. The GMC were rocked by the broadside of letters sent in response to my first IOP Hearing. Please send to:
Mr Paul Bridge, General Medical Council, Regents Place, 350 Euston Road, London, NW1 3JN

Please tell your story, and my story, to the Press. The GMC were very concerned about Press interest at my April Hearing.

Keep updated on

I would like to thank all those kind people who have donated generously to my defence. I have used this money to pay for a student to collate all the wonderful letters that you have sent which illustrate patient counter examples – ie examples of patients failed by NICE guidelines and who have benefited from advice on the website. I have also paid for a researcher to extend the references that underpin my website opinions.

Many many thanks to you all for your generous support and all the lovely letters and cards you have sent me – they have been a source of inspiration and encouragement, all much needed and appreciated!

Very best wishes Sarah
Posted on 09/15/10, 04:12 am
23 Replies | Most Recent Add Your Reply
Reminder: This is a support group for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. We trust you will do your best to remain positive and helpful. For more information, see our rules of the road.

You may also create your own Member Groups where you can moderate the discussion.
Email me when others reply to this topic help
View More Posts Ignore
Reply #11 - 09/24/10  3:08am
" Here is a copy of my letter to Paul Bridge for those who asked for examples of letters:


C H Robinson MA(Oxon) ACA


22 September 2010

Paul Bridge,
General Medical Council,
Regents Place,
350 Euston Road,
London, NW1 3JN

Dear Mr Bridge,


I am writing to you with reference to the above. I am requesting this letter be submitted as further evidence in Dr Sarah Myhill’s defence. I shall refer to the two complaints as the ‘Website Complaint’ and the ‘B12 Complaint’. I trust that you will know the details of these complaints without further explanation

The restrictions placed upon Dr Sarah Myhill (SM) at the IOP Hearing of 29 April 2010 should be set aside for the following reasons. References to the Defence Document which is to be submitted by SM are abbreviated to DD.

1. The B12 complaint contains in its actual text the phrase:

“On 24th March 2009 I had a further telephone conversation with the mother. I reiterated that we had not agreed to administer, or train her to administer the injections.”

This statement is not true, as has been demonstrated in the DD. For example, in Patient X’s medical notes there is a letter dated 4th March 2009 from Dr P of the Partners to the district nurse at K Road Health Centre stating that:

“Dear Colleague, Please can Patient X’s mum be taught how to administer B12 injections. Yours sincerely, Dr P.”

Therefore the B12 Complaint should be set aside given that it is based on an untruthful statement.

2. The Website Complaint is not corroborated by an evidence base and the credibility of the Website Complainant has not been established by the GMC.

Under GMC Imposing Interim Orders: Guidance for the Interim Orders Panel and Fitness to Practise Panel April 2008 Annex 9 (see section 4.12) it is stated that:

“The Interim Orders Panel will make no finding of fact but the complaint must be credible and backed by corroborative evidence.”

The arguments for this point are laid out in detail within the DD. Therefore the Website Complaint should be set aside under application of the above mentioned Annex.

3. The GMC data records, both of the ongoing case against SM and also of previous, subsequently dropped, cases are factually inaccurate. These factual inaccuracies are detailed in the DD. There are also serious omissions of facts, also as detailed in the DD. The cumulative effect of these inaccuracies and omissions is to render the case history of SM’s involvement with the GMC, as presented to the IOP in this data record, to be so materially deficient that the Hearing can only be concluded to have been unfair. Therefore, all decisions and restrictions resulting from that Hearing should be set aside on the basis of unfairness.

4. The Website Complaint is based on a false assumption arising from the Website Complainant’s personal belief system. The Website Complainant has a personal belief system that NICE guidelines are in some way mandatory and that Doctors who do not follow their guidance, in their entirety, represent a danger to the public. This is simply not true. Once again the DD argues in detail with a firm evidence base that NICE guidelines are not mandatory and that Doctors do have clinical freedom. This is best expressed in the following quote from a letter from NICE, which can be found in the Appendix section of the DD:

‘NICE clinical guidelines are recommendations about the treatment and care of people with specific diseases and conditions in the NHS in England and Wales. Clinical guidelines represent the view of NICE, and are arrived at after careful consideration of the evidence available. Healthcare professionals are expected to take it fully into account when exercising their clinical judgement. However, the guidance does not override the individual responsibility of healthcare professionals to make decisions appropriate to the circumstances of the individual patient, in consultation with the patient and/or guardian or carer, and informed by the summary of product characteristics of any drugs they are considering.’

Since the Website Complaint is based on a false assumption it should be set aside.

5. Further to point 4, you will be aware of the concept of Patient Counter-Examples and in a very real sense this is why NICE guidelines can never be mandatory. Patient Counter-Examples are those patients for whom ‘conventional’ or ‘accepted’ treatments for certain conditions are not efficacious. These patients deserve access to Doctors who are willing, able and qualified to diagnose and treat on an individual basis rather than merely follow these ‘conventional’ and ‘accepted’ treatment options. This is exactly the approach SM takes and the IOP will be provided with many Patient Counter-Examples to demonstrate this. In taking this approach, SM is not passing comment on NICE guidelines in general; she is merely treating patients for whom such ‘conventional’ and ‘accepted’ treatments have been ineffective and she is doing so to the best of her ability and knowledge. The fact that so many patients have sent letters and emails of support in favour of SM shows that her methods are, at the least, providing a necessary service for these patients. In fact, patient support runs much deeper than that: many of SM’s patients, myself included, credit their improving health to her protocols. These patients have almost always been failed by the ‘conventional’ and ‘accepted’ treatments laid down in NICE guidelines.

I urge the IOP to consider this point very carefully.

Placing severe restrictions, of the kind which were imposed on 29 April 2010, on SM’s licence to practise medicine is denying a large cohort of patients access to such individualised treatments (which they surely deserve) and this does no service at all to the reputation of the GMC.

6. As detailed in the DD both the Complaints were vexatious as defined by Criteria 8 of ‘Vexatious Allegations Guidance on the Application of Rule 4(3)( c) of the GMC (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004’ which states that:

‘8. Broadly, a complaint can be vexatious within rule 4(3)(c) in either its intrinsic nature or in the manner in which it is brought and/or pursued: that is, if there are reasonable grounds to believe that one or more of three criteria apply:
A. The complaint’s primary purpose and/or effect is to disturb, disrupt and pressurise the doctor, the GMC and/or another organisation and/or individual.
B. The primary purpose and/or effect of the manner in which the complaint is brought is to disturb, disrupt and/or pressurise the doctor, the GMC and/or another organisation and/or individual.
C. The complaint is otherwise manifestly unreasonable.’

The reason why the GMC did not come to the conclusion that both complaints were vexatious was because it did not properly carry out its procedures for filtering out vexatious complaints. This point is also made and evidenced in the DD. Indeed, the vexatious nature or otherwise of both Complaints was not even considered. Under its own rules, the GMC should set aside both of these Complaints on the basis that they are vexatious.

7. The independence of the Panel which sat on 29 April 2010 has not been demonstrated in a transparent and accountable way. This has to be done, as noted in the DD, even if retrospectively, for the public to have confidence in GMC procedures concerning this IOP. The DD suggests the taking of suitable affidavits for this purpose and this would seem a sensible way forward.

8. The GMC contravened certain procedural matters as follows:

Discussion of the IOP sentence before the hearing of evidence
• Lack of fair notice period accorded by GMC to SM
• GMC Counsel revealed the identities of the Partners and also of Patient X during the course of his public presentation.
• Full consideration by the Panel of the level of support for SM was not given
• Patient X’s notes were taken without their permission or knowledge
• Hearing Proceedings were flawed and unfair in that neither cross examination nor the calling of witnesses was permitted.
• The letter of instruction from Ms TS, GMC Legal Department to Professor Bouloux is littered with factual inaccuracies.
• Professor Bouloux’s Expert Witness report does not follow GMC guidance on Expert Witness Reports

Full discussion of these points is given in the DD. The cumulative effect of these procedural contraventions is to render the IOP Hearing unfair to SM and so it should be set aside on that basis.

9. Under the principle laid down in Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 583, SM has the right to be judged by her peers. A summary of this case law is that it:

“ lays down the typical rule for assessing the appropriate standard of reasonable care in negligence cases involving skilled professionals (e.g. doctors): it is known as the "Bolam test". Where the defendant has represented him or herself as having more than average skills and abilities, this test expects standards which must be in accordance with a responsible body of opinion, even if others differ in opinion. In other words, Bolam test states that "If a doctor reaches the standard of a responsible body of medical opinion, he is not negligent"
SM was judged by the Expert Witness, Professor Bouloux, who by his own admission, has no expertise in the diagnosis and treatment of either chronic fatigue syndromes or mitochondrial disorders. Indeed he states that he refers this group of patients to specialists rather than treat them himself. Within the GMC case notes on SM there is a piece of advice dated 16th February 2010 from an expert GP witness which states that:
“..did not have sufficient knowledge of CFS to be in a position to answer questions posed and that in view of Dr Myhill’s background he feels that the GMC should instruct an expert not just with mainstream knowledge of CFS but an expert with a special knowledge or interest in CFS”
By instructing Profesor Bouloux who is neither expert in nor has a special interest in CFS, the GMC has ignored its own expert advice. Indeed the GMC are confused about the manner in which SM should be assessed and the standard against which she should be judged. In his case notes, the relevant Case Examiner states that:
“Dr Myhill has provided opinions which would not be supported by the wider medical profession.”
This is not the standard against which SM should be judged. It is a defence in law, provided by Bolam, that if a doctor practises a technique which is generally accepted by his peers, then that is sufficient. ‘Peers’ are defined not by reference to the ‘wider medical profession’, as the GMC has done so but rather by reference to ‘a responsible body of medical opinion’ as defined once again by the Bolam principle.
This Bolam test is passed even in the presence of others who ‘differ in opinion’. SM’s peers are the group of doctors involved in the practice of allergy, environmental and nutritional medicine. It is from within this group of doctors that the GMC should have sought expert witness reports. These doctors certainly represent a responsible body of medical opinion and are best placed to judge SM’s practising of medicine.
Since SM has not been judged by her peers, as required by Bolam, the IOP decision should be set aside on the basis of unfairness to SM.
10. The GMC is acting outwith its remit and so its decisions regarding this IOP should be set aside. In a letter to SM, dated 7th August 2006, Neil Jinks, then GMC Assistant Registrar, stated that:

“It is not the place of the GMC to take a position on the correctness or otherwise of generally recommended or of possible ‘cutting edge’ treatment…...”

Yet this is exactly what the GMC has done and so this is exactly why the GMC’s decisions regarding this IOP should be set aside.

11. Even if restrictions were considered necessary on SM’s licence, a position which has been argued very forcefully not to be the case both in this letter and the very many other documents laid before the IOP, then the severity of those restrictions imposed on 29 April 2010 bears no relation to the supposed transgressions. No patient has been harmed by SM’s action; in fact many have been helped. Surely this is the ultimate arbiter of good medical practice? Do no harm. The DD contains many examples, demonstrating the illogical and disproportionate nature of the restrictions placed on SM compared with other recently decided GMC cases. When the IOP reconsiders SM’s case at the review IOP due on 7 October 2010, I urge them to take into account this factor and even if they cannot accept that SM should have no restrictions on her licence to practise medicine, I implore them to reduce the severity of the restrictions with particular regard to the prescribing of BNF medication as it is this restriction which has caused so much harm to the health of SM’s patients. The IOP will be presented with real life case studies of where such harm has been directly caused by this particular restriction and once again this does no service at all to the reputation of the GMC.

I hope that the IOP sees fit to take note of these many points raised in defence of SM and will, at the very least, lift the restriction on her right to prescribe when the case is reviewed on 7 October 2010. It is simply not the case that SM is a risk to public safety and the way this case has been dealt with thus far has been a travesty.

Please acknowledge receipt of this letter by return.

Yours sincerely,

View More Posts Ignore
Reply #12 - 09/27/10  3:02am
" We are submitting the Defence Document, as previoulsy posted, along with the Patient Experiences Document-PED- and a Medical References Document-MRD.

The PED has contributions from 2185 patients showing how Dr Myhill's protocols have improved patient health and also how GMC restrictions have caused deterioration in patient health.

The MRD gives a full evidence base fo Dr Myhill's website.

Thanks to every one, including of course the 2185, who have helped in this process.

Craig "
View More Posts Ignore
Reply #13 - 09/28/10  4:09pm
" EXTREMELY IMPORTANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


So the GMC do not know their own rules; what hope is there?

As Dr Myhill’s supporters will all be aware, she appeared before an Interim Orders Panel of the GMC on 29th April, 2010. The sanctions imposed by the Panel included a directive that Dr Myhill should not prescribe any medication listed in the British National Formulary, and that a number of pages from her website should be removed. This has had a far reaching effect on Dr Myhill’s practise as a doctor and upon her many patients.
The GMC are required to hold a further IOP Hearing within 6 months of the original Hearing, and duly notified Dr Myhill that this would take place in London on Thursday, 7th October, 2010.
Dr Myhill has published her Defence Document ahead of the Hearing and at section 3.1.12 it is explained with reference to the April 2010 Hearing that:
SM asked for Dr Y to be subpoenaed to attend the Hearing but this request was denied.
SM asked for Professor Bouloux to be present at the Hearing and this again was denied.
Many requests were made for persons relevant to the Hearing to be present, for example an email from SM to Mr Paul Bridge (GMC) dated 21st April 2010 requested the presence of Dr Woods.
This again was refused and SM was told that only the GMC could subpoena witnesses.

As we approach the Hearing on 7th it is vital to ensuring a fair hearing that Dr Myhill is able to cross-examine the very doctors who have made a complaint against her and the Expert Witness for the GMC, Professor Bouloux whose evidence was presented at the IOP Hearing in April. Again her request for these witnesses has been denied, on this occasion by Adam Elliot in his email of 24th September, 2010 in which he states:
On the matter of calling witnesses, as you know Rule 27(2) of the Rules provides that it is a matter for the IOP on the day to determine whether or not it will allow witnesses to be called to give evidence. There are no provisions within the IOP’s procedure rules for the subpoenaing of witnesses.

In a shock development today Dr Myhill has been advised by a solicitor:
Schedule 4 of the Medical Act 1983

You will note this Schedule deals with proceedings before, amongst other bodies, Interim Orders Panels. In particular, I refer you to paragraph 1, which states that the GMC shall make rules for the Interim Orders Panels with respect to the procedure to be followed and rules of evidence to be observed. Further, and what will be of particular interest is paragraph 2 which states that any party is entitled to issue a writ of subpoenas.

Section 36 Supreme Court Act

Is referred to in the Medical Act 1983 and deals with procedure for issuing a subpoena. It refers to the fact that the subpoena must be issued by the High Court and that expenses must be reimbursed etc.

I would suggest that your first step is to speak to whomever at the GMC told you you could not issue a subpoena and direct them to this section and ask them for an urgent explanation. I would point out that you are acting in person, and they appear to have misled you on an extremely important issue.

Accordingly, Dr Myhill has spoken with Adam Elliot today and acquainted him with the relevant sections of the Medical Act 1983 and the Supreme Court Act 1981 and has now been told that she may apply for an adjournment if subpoenas cannot be arranged in time. However, the GMC must reassess her case before October 29th or they are in breach of their own rules – and not for the first time!
Everyone who knows Dr Myhill knows her to be one of the kindest, caring and compassionate doctors in this country. Her patients frequently recount how they consulted her in desperation after their own GPs were unable to help them further through conventional medicine. So many patients also tell of improvements to their health and there is no doubt in their minds that Sarah is an exceptional doctor, always thinking of how best to help her patients and reading widely in what should be her leisure hours to ensure she uses the very best treatment available. The difference between her and so many doctors is that she always asks ‘Why?’ (is this patient ill) and then goes on to address the cause of the problem rather than suppress the symptoms with medication. My own experience of Dr Myhill is that of a doctor able to take disparate research from across the world and to pull this together to formulate treatment that is highly effective.
Since 1991, Dr Myhill has been subjected to six investigations following complaints from other doctors but none reached a formal Hearing or action by the GMC. Dr Myhill is still able to claim that no patient has ever made a complaint despite being handed a copy of an email at her hearing in April 2010 by Dr Morrison of the IOP Panel with what can only be described as a theatrical flourish. The email did not constitute a complaint and it is not contained in the latest bundle of documents supplied by the GMC as relevant to the forthcoming IOP Hearing.
Whilst accepting that the GMC is duty bound to investigate complaints, what all of Sarah’s patients, colleagues, friends and supporters want to see is a fair hearing, conducted in accordance with the law of the land. An important part of this is for Dr Myhill to be able to question her accusers about their statements on points that she feels are misleading. There is no doubt that false evidence has been provided to the GMC in one instance.
So today’s advice from a solicitor consulted by Dr Myhill is shocking.
The Medical Act 1983 in full is prominently displayed on the GMC website so their can be no excuse for inaccurate and/or poor or misleading advice. Further, the Act as displayed on the GMC website is exactly as in the conclusion put forward by the solicitor.
So we are left to ask ‘If the GMC do not know their own rules, what hope is there?’
The GMC draws its powers from the Medical Act 1983, a document of some 97 pages, and whilst this is a complex document it should be the Bible so far as the GMC is concerned. Their employees should be aware of the basic tenants of the Act; those with an investigatory brief or concerned with the calling of Hearings should be fully conversant with the legislation and able to offer truthful advice. In fact, just as Police Officers have to learn by heart a wide range of legislation, we would expect the GMC staff involved in this process to know the provisions of the Act under which they operate by heart, too, or at least to have the integrity check the facts if they are unsure. We would not tolerate a system in the United Kingdom whereby our police officers, or anyone else for that matter, acted outside the law of the land, made it up or interpreted it as they chose to; neither should the GMC be allowed to work outside of their governing legislation and thus disadvantage a hard working and effective physician in the process.
Dr Myhill has complained bitterly and on many occasions about the GMC’s failure to comply with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 and the disadvantage caused by their failure to store her records securely and to provide her with ALL of the documents relevant to her case. The Defence Document details a litany of complaints in respect of the IOP Hearing held in April, the validity of evidence presented to the Panel and of the actions of the GMC. Having seen so much of the evidence first hand I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of that document.
Now we find by omission or commission the GMC have sought to deny Dr Myhill one of the very basic tenants of English Law; the right to a fair trial/hearing and we are left to consider:
Just whose fitness to practise should be in question? "
View More Posts Ignore
Reply #14 - 10/04/10  2:43am
" Final submissions to the GMC have to be in by 12.00 on 5 October.

Let's hope it is a good result and that Dr Myhill is not struck off.


Here is the address

Paul Bridge,
General Medical Council,
Regents Place,
350 Euston Road, "
View More Posts Ignore
Reply #15 - 12/02/10  9:07am
" Dr Myhill's case is being heard in the High Court today.

I will post the outcome here as soon as I have it.

Best wishes and thanks again for the continuing support we have received.

Craig "
View More Posts Ignore
Reply #16 - 12/02/10  9:28am
" Thanks Craig..I had a feeling it was about now. I have been checking her website for updates just in case I had missed it.

Best wishes.

Jen "
View More Posts Ignore
Reply #17 - 12/02/10  11:26am
" High court hearing postponed until after 14 January 2011.
Sarah has a follow up IOP with GMC on 23 Deecember 2010.
Craig "
View More Posts Ignore
Reply #18 - 01/06/11  5:27pm


In a stunning turn around at the IOP Hearing today, the GMC has restored Dr Myhill's licence to practice, including the right to prescribe, but have imposed conditions which are largely cosmetic and procedural.
Dr Myhill will now be able to practice again as a doctor.

For the first time the GMC has acknowledged the substantial support from colleagues and members of the public and has accepted that no patient had been harmed or put at risk.

The GMC determination was received late this evening and Sarah wishes to consider it at length in the morning. As soon as possible, it will be posted in full on this website. In the meantime, please raise your glasses and drink to Dr Myhill.

Well done everyone and thank you for all your help and support! "
View More Posts Ignore
Reply #19 - 01/07/11  3:00am
" Power to the people...Craig many thanks for your updates and for all your hard work.

best wishes Jen x "
View More Posts Ignore
Reply #20 - 01/07/11  7:41am

Thank you Craig

I cant magine better news.

Thank you to Dr Myhills colleagues for their support and others from the public who have supported her.
Congratulations Dr Myhill on your resiliance.

Thank's Craig for keeping us posted blow by blow.
Great job.

I'm raising my glass to Dr Sarah Myhill that she may go upward and onward to bigger and better things and to all those who supported her.

Al "

First | Previous | Page: 1 2 3 | Next | Most Recent Add Your Reply

More From Around the Web