For example, Myhill has claimed that it was known that vaccinations were partly to blame for Gulf War Syndrome (this is untrue), that mumps before puberty is a minor illness (complications can include pancreatitis, encephalitis, and sensorineural hearing loss – not to mention death), that mercury is a cause of autism (it isn’t), and she has also made the flat-out wrong assertion that MMR contained mercury (i.e. ethylmercury from thimerosal) and aluminium (MMR contains neither ingredient and is in fact a live vaccine, so would never have thimerosal added to it). Dr Myhill has also made unsubstantiated claims about vaccination and CFS, and the risks and benefits of flu vaccination. There is also the mischaracterisation of squalene as “a toxic lipid”.
Myhill is clearly staggeringly ill-informed about vaccination. She’s not alone in that, but it is particularly worrying that someone so ill-informed should be publishing such misinformation on their website in their role as a doctor. Even more worrying – the GMC seems to be unable or unwilling to do anything about this. Here’s what the GMC have to say about good medical practice:
Good Medical Practice sets out the principles and values on which good practice is founded; these principles together describe medical professionalism in action. The guidance is addressed to doctors, but it is also intended to let the public know what they can expect from doctors.
I would like to draw readers’ attention to the following, taken from the GMC’s guide: “You must keep your knowledge and skills up to date throughout your working life“; “If you publish information about your medical services, you must make sure the information is factual and verifiable“; and “In Good Medical Practice the terms ‘you must’ and ‘you should’ are used in the following ways: ‘You must’ is used for an overriding duty or principle.” The statements on Dr Myhill’s website regarding vaccination illustrate that she has failed to keep her knowledge up to date and ensure that the information she has published is factual and verifiable. Good Medical Practice also states: “Serious or persistent failure to follow this guidance will put your registration at risk.” Dr Myhill’s failure to follow this guidance is certainly persistent.
If the GMC’s guidance is intended to let the public know what they can expect from doctors, and it also states that doctors publishing information about their medical services must make sure the information is factual and verifiable, then the public are being misled. We cannot expect information published by Dr Myhill to be factual and verifiable (some of it demonstrably is not), and we cannot expect the GMC to take action regarding published information that is untrue or unverifiable.
My comments above are all based on the fact that Dr Myhill has published statements on her website regarding vaccination that are unsupported by evidence, misleading, or untrue (and has been allowed by the GMC to continue to publish these statements on her website). But it’s not just vaccination.
Dr Myhill recommends that “Babies should be laid on their sides, not on their tummies” (link). This contradicts NHS advice, as can be seen on this webpage: link (“Place your baby on their back to sleep from the very beginning, for both day and night sleeps. This will reduce the risk of cot death. It’s not as safe for babies to sleep on their sides as on their backs.“). If the NHS information is correct – that placing babies on their backs to sleep reduces the risk of cot death, and that it is not as safe for babies to sleep on their sides as on their backs – then why does Dr Myhill advise otherwise?