We recently wrote about Prof Paice's deanery lying about the Scot Junior thing in the BMJ.
At least one rapid response had been posted to the BMJ website before our first post about this, and the Forum Moderators on DNUK have now confirmed that there was no request by Paice or the London Deanery to have Scot Junior's comments about Dame Carol Shit taken down.
So why does the BMJ still have the false version on its website and the (also false) comment:
There are currently no responses to this article
Freedom of speech?
I think not. Remember how the mainstream media wouldn't print stories about Scot Junior. At least one MSM reporter told bloggers (including Dr Rant) that there was editorial pressure not to print the story.
Dr Rant knows from past personal experience that New Labour lawyers will use tactical nuclear weapons if they feel they need to to suppress a story like this that they don't like from reaching the MSM.
We remember how little coverage there was in the MSM (C4 news aside) about the doctors march re: MTAS last year.
We know the BMA spent their own members' money to argue for the government and against their own members in court re: MTAS last year.
Democracy?
I don't think so.
Dr Rant
Dr Cardigan
Dr Blue
Dr Brown
Rev Dr Green
Dr Mustard
Mr Orange
Dr Pink
Dr Purple
Mr Salmon
Dr White
Mr Beige
Ms Scarlet
Dr Informed
Posts
4 comments:
Rapid Responses is guarded by Godlee's rotties. They have teeth and they allow nothing critical.
Well written Rant baby.
RP
I have also commented about Censorship on the BMJ website.
Rapid response posted by Dr Rant on BMJ site:
Who's afraid of Carol Black?
I notice that serious factual inaccuracies have been raised with this BMJ item.
A doctor from DNUK claims he posted a rapid response raising these factual inaccuracies almost immediately.
However, that rapid response has stlll not been put on the BMJ website.
Two DNUK moderators have now come forward to contradict the London deaneries version of events as being false and misleading - that Prof Paice did not contact DNUK and ask for the item to be removed.
Dr Rant and the other medical bloggers have long maintained that Prof Paice acted unprofessionally and against GMC advice by contacting Gillian Needham.
The GMC have previously made clear in writing that complaints about doctor's behaviour away from work (eg: articles in the media) should be dealt with via normal channels first.
Furthermore, swearing away from work is no more a GMC offense than adultery. If we start disciplining doctors for either of these again then we will be very short of both junior doctors and deans.
Also, there was no libel in this case as the doctor was stating a firmly held belief that was shared by a significant body of junior doctors (even though they may have expressed it in a less scatalogical manner).
Finally, Dame Carol Black is not a colleague of Dr Scot Junior in the sense of Good Medical Practice. However, Dr Scot Junior is a colleague of Prof Needham.
If anyone has behaved unprofessionally it is Paice, Needham. Black too should have stepped in to stop[ this but failed to.
Now the BMJ is failing to publish rapid rebuttals of false information defending Paice. This perpetuates a shocking attack on free speech in the medical profession.
The BMJ should be ashamed.
Dr Frank Rant
We are living in a totalitarian state as far as medicine is concerned - and a land of unbridled capitalism as far as the stock exchange is concerned. No wonder people are confused.
Free speech and a social conscience is the best way to reconcile these two opposites.
Godless's censorship does not help the State of Medicine. It hastens its destruction at the hands of the alternative practitioners and non-medical science.
Dr Rant, you are a beacon of honest hope for us all
Post a Comment