Carol Sarler is Fucking Ignorant...

...in her article in the Times yesterday.

I mean, what a fucking moron.

Not only does she regurgitate the well known lie about GPs earnings, but she thinks that in Dr Findlay's day things were better.

A quick glance at From Cradle to Grave: 50 Years of the NHS would show her that that generation of GPs had thousands of patients and would have up to 60 patients waiting in large waiting rooms, often to be seen at a large desk at the end of the room. Examination was cursory or absent, and workload was understandably horrific. A doctor could do 50 visits a day, often on a bicycle.

And her idea that technology can replace a good clinician would be laughable if it were not being given space in a broadsheet daily. In fact, she talks about how wonderful 24hr walk in centers are, yet she criticises GPs because she cannot see the GP that 'knows her best' within 48hrs. Is the poor fucker not allowed a holidy? Selfish bint.

And the reason, my dear moron, that "appointments are only available during daylight", is because that is all the government will fund. Fuckwit.

If you are a GP, you'd better sit down before you read the next bit:

My family’s GP does nine two-hour surgeries a week; those 18 hours aside, a large building on a London high street sits empty, humming quietly with the running costs for which we pay.

What a fucking retard! Do you honestly think that ALL your GP does is see patients face to face? I mean, how fucking stupid are you, Carol?

GPs do results handling, reports on their patients, letters to specialists/other GPs/government agencies, education, practice meetings etc., etc.. This is normal for any professional, and means that they work 2-3xd as long as the consulting times.

And Carol, I can safely call you an ignorant tosser when you say that:

The supposed merit of GPs’ “filtering” patients to save specialists’ time is done better by triage nurses.

Dr Rant has never heard anyone make this claim before. The available evidence, common sense, and the very process of medical triage (sorting done by the most experienced person available - which, for primary care, is a GP you fuckwit!), all tell us that this is not the case.


And the rest of this dribble is just rambling masturbatory tosh. Like this:
Which would you prefer? To hope that the local chap is sufficiently on the ball to spot a future problem and sufficiently up to speed to deal with it? Or to get a polite note saying that your data suggests you are at risk — but there is available the most up-to-date treatment, so would you care to pop in, time and place of your choosing?


What the fuck are you talking about? How is the 'local chap' going to have any different chance of being 'on the ball' than the person sending you the polite note.

If anyone sees Carol Sarler's brain, they can return it to her c/o The Times, London.