Skip to main content

Southall - what about his research?

Responding to today's GMC hearing:
John Hemming MP has called upon the General Medical Council to investigate the research of Dr David Southall. "The GMC", he said, "have so far refused to investigate the research of Dr David Southall. They have found most of the recent allegations considered by the GMC to be proven."

"It is very important that Dr Southall's research is properly investigated. His research involved giving babies dangerous gas mixtures and this must not be swept under the carpet. If he is struck off by the GMC that must not stop any investigation into the research that he has managed. The fact that his research managed to be performed is something that needs in itself to be considered."

"In fact there should be a public inquiry into what he has done over many years. This must not be the end of the issue.".

Comments

webrad said…
Nineteen years ago my child was referred to David Southal as he had apnoea attacks. I am horrified that I may have been covertly video recorded, that i may have been suspected of harming my chld, adn that teh thousands of pounds I raised for charity (AMBLE-a monitor for a babies life) may have been used for other purposes. I used to supply products for the monitors to other parents, adn was asked on one occasion to report back to dr Southall any strange comments from one parent as he thought they were harming therir baby. i wish i had seen teh warnign signs. i wish i could talk to him! i wish i could read teh notes.There is no doubt he did work on cot death, but when did munchaused take over, adn how secretly he did it...
Don'tQuoteMe said…
This doctor is proof that there are not enough checks and balances in the system.

If social workers or doctors make a mistake, its impossible for a single parent to stop the juggernaut of state officials against them. Of greater concern is that "Harold Shipman's" can work with detection. No doctor or social work can be above the law. Each must be open to being challenged and accountable for their actions.

Popular posts from this blog

Standards Board and Ken Livingstone

The link is to the case where Ken Livingstone appealed the decision of the Adjudication Panel for England.

The Standards Board and associated Adjudication Panel have done a lot of damage to democracy in the UK. The courts are, however, bringing them into more sanity.

The point about Ken Livingstone's case is that it was high profile and he also could afford to appeal. The Standard Board has a problem in that those subject to its enquiries face substantial costs that they cannot claim back.

This is an issue that needs further work.

In essence the Judge found that what he said brought him into disrepute, but not the office of Mayor. We do need the machinery of the SBE and APE to concentrate on things that matter rather than people being rude to each other.

Problems with Outlook Express - emails lost dbx corruption

In the light of the enthusiasm shown for my post relating to the OCX control that must not be named (and probably Microsoft's most embarrassing error of recent years) I thought I would write someting about Outlook Express.

Outlook Express is the email client that comes as part of windows. I use it myself, although I have my emails filtered through a spam filter of my own devising written in java. It takes email off a number of servers using POP3 (Post Office Protocol TCP Port 110) and sends it using SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol port 25).

I have recently spent a few hours dealing with the problem that arises when .dbx files get corrupted during compacting.

Outlook Express (OE) stores the emails (and other things) in files with the suffix .dbx. Each folder has its own .dbx file. They are stored in hidden directories. This makes it harder to deal with things when OE goes wrong.

It is very important to back up your stored *.dbx files as otherwise if you have a disk crash/stol…

Statement re False Allegations Campaign

Many people will know that my family and I have been subject to a campaign of false allegations by Esther Baker for the past 4 1/2 years. Yesterday there was a court judgment Baker v Hemming [2019] EWHC 2950 (QB) which formally confirmed that the allegations were false. Esther Baker, who had brought a libel claim against me, dropped her defence of Truth to my counter-claim and was taken by the judge as no longer trying to prove her allegations. Due to Baker's various breaches of court rules and orders, she has been barred from further repeating her allegations even in the court proceedings. Further claim of mine in libel against Baker are ongoing. There is a good summary in the Daily Mail here.

This demonstrates the challenge in fighting false allegations in today's Britain. A substantial campaign was built up to promote allegations which had no substance to them. Various Labour MPs and in pa…