Warning: this website discloses medical evidence proving that British surgeons, working within the NHS, conducted a covert experimental neurosurgical operation on the brain of a five-year-old child, illicitly and without medical justification, at the North Staffordshire Infirmary in 1967. These extraordinary and shocking revelations will challenge your faith in ethical medicine..

Complaint to the General Medical Council

The following letter of complaint was sent to the GMC on 2 February 2012, including the submission of my report and copy of my first MRI scan. In retrospect it was probably ill-advised of me to have complained to the GMC in the first instance, before submitting any complaint directly to Guy's & St. Thomas' NHS Trust (GSTT), who had failed to disclose the evidence revealed in the MRI scan. However, in view of the seriousness (and criminal) nature of the historical allegations over events in 1967, which were not the responsibility of GSTT, at the time it seemed proportionate to do so. I had no expert corroboration of the evidence, and therefore I doubted that I would get any satisfactory response from a complaint to GSTT, as it seemed unlikely that GSTT would voluntarily admit to its own cover-up. I expected that the GMC would have the resources to independently assess the evidential value of the MRI scan, and, in view of the additional evidence contained in my report, would therefore be obliged to treat my allegations with some seriousness.

Letter of complaint to the GMC – 22/02/2012 [pdf – 70KB]

This complaint was made before I had access to the documents which were provided in response to my subject access request to GSTT (in November 2012), and was therefore ill-informed with regard to the details of the alleged cover-up, in particular the identity of the original reporting radiologist at St. Thomas'. However, it does highlight the recent failure of Dr. Thomasin Andrews at Guy's Neurology Dept. to disclose her awareness of the significant anomaly revealed in the scan, as well as pointing out the general difficulty in obtaining expert corroboration of that evidence. The GMC's initial response was to declare the complaint 'out of time', as the events of 1967-68 referred to in my complaint and report occurred more than five years previously. There followed a series of three more letter-exchanges in which I drew attention again to the recent cover-up of the MRI evidence (indicating wilful negligence on the doctor's part), as being clearly within the GMC's five-year limitation period, and stressing the prima facie value of that evidence.

Throughout this exchange the GMC held to the position, as stated in their second letter of 20/03/2012, that: "The Assistant Registrar has read all the information that you have provided and has seen no evidence of the implementation of a cranial device hence the decision to not progress with your complaint." At no point in this exchange (prior to their final response) did the GMC specifically mention the MRI evidence itself, or state that they had evaluated that evidence and found it to be normal. It was not until their response to my fourth letter, in which I raised the question that it might be the case that the GMC is unwilling to accept the MRI evidence without further written corroboration from a medical (neurological) expert, that they explicitly state the reason for their refusal to acknowledge the evidence, i.e., due to the circumstance that: "we are not able to medically evaluate your scans", despite having stated (paradoxically) in the preceding paragraph: "the Assistant Registrar has considered all of the evidence that you have provided, including the visual MRI evidence":

Final response from the GMC – 29/03/2012 [pdf – 42KB]

As the MRI component of the evidence (with respect to images 7.13-7.15, as discussed on the title page) included in my submission to the GMC was clearly crucial to the substance of my complaint, why did it take an eight-letter exchange for the GMC to state explicitly that they are unable to evaluate it? It would have been reasonable for them to qualify the statement in their initial letter (02/03/2012): "From the information that you have provided, we cannot identify any issues that would enable us to conduct an investigation", with an explanation to that effect, rather than persist in an eight-letter exchange on the basis of an ambiguity, especially as I had in my first letter pointed out the difficulties inherent in obtaining any such expert corroboration of the evidence. It does not seem unreasonable to expect that the General Medical Council should be in a position to evaluate first-hand medical evidence that is presented to it. However, it is clear that he GMC were simply averse to discussing or even acknowledging the element of the MRI evidence, until pressed upon the subject.

The allegations I have made have far-reaching implications, not only for the NHS, but for the reputation of the medical-profession as a whole. Understandably, nobody wants to accept that members of the medical profession, in whose care we must routinely entrust our lives, are prepared to act with such concerted disregard for their patient's well-being, and under the direction of imperatives having nothing to do with the care of individual patients. It reminds us of a rather unnerving truth: that, in the absence of additional safeguards, the practice of medicine is not an inherently ethical vocation.

In an important sense therefore, it is difficult to see any individual doctor's corroboration (or lack of corroboration) as being truly independent. It is also the case that any neurological expert, on examining the evidence, would not simply be faced with the option of a correct established medical diagnosis in favour of an incorrect one, but rather of correcting the omission of a report of a serious medical anomaly, with a disclosure of findings that would be completely unprecedented in the history of medical science, originating as they do from a clandestine medical experiment. It is precisely because the items revealed in the first and second MRI scans did not find their way inside my neck by accident, but by an illicit and covert design, that any individual doctor finds him- or herself unable to discuss or disclose them, not wishing to be compromised professionally, and with a view to his or her own personal safety.

While it is perhaps understandable that those with the relevant expertise might have difficulty finding the words suitable to describe these phenomena, it is of a major concern that doctors, by refusing to volunteer any information which might disclose the fact, can succeed in concealing the worst excesses of the medical profession, with no independent authority having expertise capable of overruling that reticence. On each occasion that I have sought medical consultation over my MRI scans, whether through NHS services or privately, I have come up against this 'regime of silence' – and this in spite of the fact that the visual evidence is clear and distinct, perhaps even to an untrained eye. As I have already received consultation over my first scan from a neurologist (my dissatisfaction with which was in part the subject of my complaint to the GMC), it seems intentionally evasive and circular that the GMC, in the final sentence of their last letter to me (dated 29/03/2012), should refer me back to square one – to discuss the matter with my GP!

back to top ^