# Dr Taranissi to face the GMC



## Flopsy

Tonight's Evening Standard newspaper

'Baby god' doctor to face GMC over treatment claims by Sophie Goodchild
London's most high-profile fertility doctor faces disciplinary action after complaints over his treatment of two women patients.

Millionaire Mohamed Taranissi, who runs a pioneering clinic in Wimpole Street, will appear before the General Medical Council over allegations of poor treatment.

It follows allegations made by the women to the GMC after they had treatment at his Assisted Reproduction and Gynaecology Centre - the second most successful clinic in London. The women, who have not been named, claim he failed to keep proper medical records.

One alleges he also put "inappropriate" pressure on her to have tests on her immune system.

Legal papers claim Mr Taranissi suggested the woman should undergo treatment using an unnamed medicine which is not officially licensed in this country.

The second woman, who was also treated by the doctor, says he failed to investigate the cause of her fertility problems.

Her husband complained that Mr Taranissi, who charges patients £2,500 for a basic, single IVF treatment, was " insensitive, lacking in compassion and defensive" when communicating with him.

**************************************************************************

This is just a snip. To read the whole thing go to one of these links (I've put the long one into a Tinyurl)

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23554592-details/'Baby+god'+doctor+to+face+GMC+over+treatment+claims/article.do

or

http://tinyurl.com/4h7d4k

Kindest regards to all
/links


----------



## Caz

Oh dear!

You've got to feel a bit sorry for Mr T. haven't you? We really don't like success in this country. 

A couple of things seem odd. Firstly _second_ most successful clinic in London?  I thought the ARGC was the most successful in the country, let alone London, unless I am very much out the loop.

Secondly, £2,500 for IVF... don't make me laugh! Is there actually a clinic in the UK that charges this little? Let alone the way the ARGC fee scale works, (which doesn't include drugs like most don't and then tests scans etc. on top, which they do a LOT more of than most clinics).

Not a very well researched article is it?

I am guessing the unlicensed treatment they mention is IVIG. I haven't been treated at the ARGC so couldn't comment on whether people are pressurised into having immune testing or not but I imagine at nearly £800 a throw with the promise of much more expense if you get a positive result then it's something the patient thinks hard about before embarking on.
I remember one of the issues shown in the Panorama programme was about how the immune testing was "pushed". Maybe it is, but maybe it's just because they believe in it so much that they push is and, frankly, if someone goes to them with several failures under their belt then you'd be shiocked if they didn't suggest it. 
It does seem to me, though, that a lot of patients who go there are advised to have immune checks and an awful lot of them turn out to have immune issues... now that could be that a lot of patients go there after tx elsewhere has failed _because_ of undiagnosed immune problems but without any official measuring or monitoring of immune treatment in IVF then we'll never really know what's going on there. Until the HFEA acknowledge it as a possible legitimate line of enquiry into unexplained IF or mutilple cycle failure and start monitoring its use and success rates then there will never be any control and it's always going to be open to individual interpretation and possible exploitation.

Either way the ARGC must be doing something right to get live birth rates in the 37 - 39 age range that are better than a lot of clinics get in under 35s.

C~x


----------



## Juicy

Caz, not sure if i am right but I read the stats as making the Lister the most successful clinic in London since they treat over three times as many patients as ARGC including 500 women over 40 ie about a third, whereas over 40s were less than 10% of the patients at ARGC.  The Lister don't turn anyone away, not that I've heard anyway.  ARGC wouldn't have taken me on at 35 with FSH of 13.5 but the Lister don't bat an eyelid. 

However, clearly Taranissi does great stuff with the patients he does treat and it seems a shame he's come in for so much bad press- these complaints may or may not be justified (I have no idea but he seems very popular with FFs) but he's been treated disgracefully by the HFEA in my view


----------



## Yellowheart

I'm pretty sure that the HFEA website currently shows ARGC to have the highest live birth rate in the UK.  In the under 35 category it shows UCH do have a marginally higher pregnancy rate but i believe HFEA recommends using a live birth rate when comparing clinics.

From what i have seen I don't think ARGC would ever turn anyone away - they believe that as low FSH as possible is needed so they recommend monitoring to try and find a good month.  Again, from what i have seen the patient is part of the decision too and it is about all hormones being within the desired range, not just FSH.

Most clinics, i'm sure, have complaints from patients.  It is a shame that ARGC are so closely scrutinized by the press.

In my experience Mr Taranissi is a gracious, caring, dedicated man who was prepared to go the extra mile in my treatment and i will always be so so grateful to him and his team for everything.


----------



## Blu

Sadly more tabloid journalism, me thinks....

I certainly wasn't 'pushed' into immune testing or treatment - it was discussed and offered as a possible explanation as to why 3 previous attempts elsewhere had failed - we chose to have the tests. In my experience, whilst ARGC may be expensive, they do not try and extort money at every opportunity. I recently had a FET and they advised not having IVIG until they new my embie had thawed as they did not want me to spend money unnecessarily. I also got called back a number of times recently for repeat bloods and scans as they couldn't work out what was happening with my AF - I didn't get charged for any of the repeats.

I bet the two complaints have come off the back of the Panorama witch-hunt....

I'm certainly planning to stay with ARGC and Mr T. Hopefully if he wins his libel action against the BBC he'll put the money back into his research or towards a suitable charity (FF).

Blu


----------



## Anthony Reid

The official notice from the GMC ....

Mr Mohamed EL-TARANISSI

From : 29 September 2008 To : 3 October 2008

Category : Fitness to Practise Hearings

Info :

Fitness to Practise Panel
Planned dates: 29 September to 24 October 2008
Regents Place, 350 Euston Road, London NW1 3JN

The Fitness to Practise Panel will meet at Regents Place, 350 Euston Road, London NW1 3JN to consider a new case of impairment by reason of misconduct.

Name: Mr Mohamed EL-TARANISSI
GMC Reference Number: 3598391

Area of practice: London

The Panel will inquire into an allegation that Dr El-Taranissi, in respect of one patient, failed to keep proper medical records, applied inappropriate pressure on her to undergo immunological testing and suggested that she undertake treatment with an unlicenced medicine. And that in these respects Dr El-Taranissis practice and care fell significantly below the standard expected of a medical practitioner. It is also alleged that Dr El Taranissi, in respect of a second patient, failed to undertake an examination or carry out an investigation to ascertain the cause of the patients illness, that he failed to maintain proper medical records and his communication with the patients husband was insensitive, lacking in compassion and defensive.

In accordance with Rule 41(2) of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004, the Panel may decide to exclude the public from the proceedings or any part of the proceedings, where it considers that the circumstances of the case outweigh the public interest in holding the hearing in public.

Calendar here :
http://www.gmcpressoffice.org.uk/apps/news/events/index.php?key=0

/links


----------



## Betty M

I'm pretty sure you can get self-funded ivf at some NHS hospitals outside London for £2500. At Hammersmith an ivf cycle (incl bloods, scans, anaesthetic charges and a post cycle cons. appt) is £2800. 

I don't want to get involved in a debate re the IVIG issue and the merits or otherwise of the ARGC approach as it always tends to get a tad heated but I know a no of people told by ARGC that without IVIG they would not be successful and who then were without it. Not that anecdote is evidence however it must be tempting with IVIG being so expensive to suggest it is required in cases where it may well not be. Until the proper trials are done we just wont know. Tony did suggest some time back that the funding etc was getting put in place for this but I am not sure if anything has come of that. 

Also every patient has a right to complain about what they believe is inappropriate treatment  - there is plenty of it talked about on this site  - and even successful drs are not immune to the occasional off day/bad call. 

Betty


----------



## Blu

I agree with you Betty - my issue is more with the Tabloid journalism that is predominantly sensationalist and poorly researched. It adds to the ignorant attitudes of many people who have never had to face IF issues.

Blu


----------



## Betty M

Its not only tabloids unfortunately  - its everywhere. I highly recommend Bad Science by Ben Goldacre in all good bookshops as they say - the idiocy of even "serious" science journos in the newspapers/tv is shocking.

If I hear one more person talking/writing about a dr "implanting" embryos I will scream - if only it was that easy!

Betty


----------



## Blu

Betty -


----------



## Guest

Zen...i agree...Mr T and his team were always professional and so fantastic and showed me alot of respect.... 

Inshallah (god wiling) Mr T will win his case and continue to help ladies with fertility issues and bless them with offspring....


----------



## nathaliewp

I wrote on the original posting and also the article.  GRR   this makes me soooo angry.  Why is it we always use people and slate them if they are successful.  People keep trying it on with Mr T.  He and his team always seem so dedicated.  They have their own style but they know exctlay what they are doing.  I had 2 failed attempts and on my first went in on Good Friday last year where Mr T looked after me himself to try and save things for me.  This is a man that is so dediacted to what he does.  yes his approach will not suit everyone.  so they can go off and try elsewhere.  Like buying a house I would do all my prep work and have a survey so I am sure people do this when trying IVF as it is so costly.  Sounds to me like this/these people are bad eggs and trying it on.  Well thay need to get lost and stick their bad karma somewhere else!!!!!  I for one next month will give Mr T my full support when I am at ARGC again!!!


----------



## Emma74 aka Emmett

I have never had any immune tx forced onto me it was always my descision and in my case the right descision  

I think definately sour grapes here and i can not fault any one of the staff there and will always be eternally grateful to him   

I wish they would leave him alone as he has always been lovely and caring to myself and my partner and very positive, he is truely dedicated to his job


----------



## Guest

Sorry   - this is the same as I posted on the other thread.... 

GAWD - here we go again.....why oh why in all of this does "BALANCE OF EVIDENCE" never seem to really come into it??!! 2 girls v ?    

The poor man - I have only ever had true dedication and care when he or his team have treated me. I have never been pushed into anything and if some txs are as yet unlicensed for fertility tx here in the UK (IVig/Humira) it is because we have such a slow and backward system (anyone thought to consider that the country in most fear of litigation, ie the US, DOES have the right to use IVIg.....)

Grrr it is ridiculous....

PS ARGC did not work for me......but that does not make a difference to how I feel 

xxx


----------



## Josie21

I have submitted the following comment to the Evening Standard: -


I continue to despair & be disgusted by individuals such as these women and others seeking to divert their own disappointments upon this wonderful man.  I have been treated (unsuccessfully to date before you assume otherwise) by Mr T and am always staggered that someone clearly so gifted continues to be persecuted by the UK establishment.  I suspect that professional jealousy is at the basis of these claims with other much less successful "experts" hiding behind these "patients".  I have been treated by another big player in the infertility arena (who incidentally would warrant some criticism for their practices) - Mr T is the least arrogant & most personally interested and furthermore has demonstrated he has the greater ability. Contrary to the implication of this article, he is not the most expensive - in fact I was charged nearly double for immune testing by my previous clinic! Mr T does more testing during his treatment which gives him the best results and I am happy to pay for it because I know he is my best chance. We are lucky to have him in the UK - PLEASE DON'T DRIVE THIS MAN OUT.


----------



## Josie21

Blu - I understand Mr T did win his BBC case.

However, they have *still* not paid up as they are now (using the delaying tactics of) questioning his legal costs & choice of lawyer! Of course, he should have gone for a cheaper lawyer when his reputation depended on it!  Are they imbeciles?!


----------



## Jinty

As with everyone else I think this is a witchhunt. My own experience was that I've never been treated at another clinic therefore when I had my first cycle because there was no reason to believe there were any issues on my side (we knew it was MF) they didn't do any immune testing or anything extra at all. 
Having had a loss with my first cycle they did suggest immune testing which I was happy to try and the results showed I did not have immune issues therefore no treatment necessary. Therefore no 'inappropriate' pressure, in fact no pressure or even suggestion at all. I can only therefore conclude that in the case of the 'inappropriate' pressure they had results which made them believe that IVIG would help.
Incidently when my second pregnancy was failing they suggested IVIG but were very, very honest about the chances of it working and why they were suggesting it. I have never felt in any way pressurised, on the contrary, I've felt cared for and that ALL the staff really, really wanted me to succeed and had my best interests and heart. And of course third time lucky they helped me conceive my gorgeous daughter for which I will be forever grateful
xxx


----------



## tattyt™

I find this all very disappointing, obviously these couples are upset & disappointed that their tx was unsuccessful and maybe they are looking for someone to blame.  Have they actually experienced tx at other clinics?  I certainly have and feel that my knowledge is quite broad now and have seen and experienced some things I was not happy with.  Would I sue over it? no, I have learnt from it all.

I had an unsuccessful tx at the ARGC, this was tx no 3 for me.  The care I received from them was spot on, and yes I did have immune testing, and I wanted it.  I had had 2 unsuccessful tx's before, 1 which had resulted in a miscarriage so I wanted more answers.  I think this is quite a common scenario for the ARGC as a lot of people turn to the ARGC for answers, these people usually have had several failed tx's before and the ARGC are still able to produce such amazing figures.  How is this not by chance thats for sure.  There is no doubt this man knows what he is doing.

The tx at the ARGC did cost more, we were expecting it to and although it didn't work the knowledge I received from the daily testing allowed me to know how my body dealt with certain drugs & I feel this knowledge was invaluable to helping me plan my next tx, drugs protocol etc.  We decided not to cycle at the ARGC on the next tx as I live to far away and I was able to have tx at another top London clinic but have my monitoring etc close to home which was ideal for us.  

The 4th tx worked and like I have said I do feel it was mainly to do with the knowledge I had gained through my tx at the ARGC.  The clinic which resulted in my gorgeous little boy did not really offer any after care so I called the ARGC spoke to the lovely Steph and asked whether they would consider monitoring my pregnancy and basically treat me as though I had had tx with them.  Thankfully they agreed and I received wonderful attention from them, we went to London frequently for blood tests and always received a call that day to advise us of levels and any changes in drugs.  From this we found out that I needed a lot of progesterone support as my body seemed to not absorb it very well & funnily enough this is one of the reasons I had felt my 1st tx had misscarried so that just goes to show you.  Steph even called with Mr T at the start as he wanted to know more about my tx as I had responded so well compared to my last 3 tx's, I could hear him discussing things with Steph.  He didn't need to care about my pregnancy, it wasn't going to count towards his HFEA figures BUT he did care & I can not thank him enough for that.

and they never charged me for any of this.................................. thank you ARGC & Mr T

Tattyt


----------



## mouse1

Oooh I'm cross  
We went to ARGC on our 3rd cycle (previously at Hammersmith) & even then we did not have immune testing. We tested on our 4th cycle but IVIG was not suggested. On our 5th go we decided ourselves to go with LIT which is also completely unlicensed & unproven but no one seems to be attacking Paul Armstromg at the Portland. Mr T also suggested IVIG which I had twice. I don't know what worked or if it would have worked without the treatment but something did & I now have a beautiful daughter . A single day hasn't gone by since she was born without me being thankful to Mr T for what he did for us.
My treatment at the Hammersmith was conveyor style/one size fits all treatment - I never saw a consultant & in comparison to ARGC had very little monitoring which resulted in only 1 embryo during one cycle (they did IVF rather than ICSI without asking us despite MF issues!!!).
At ARGC every step was explained, often by the big man himself. There were never any guarantees, only hope. It was chaotic but that's because of the level of monitoring they do & the sheer number of phone calls they have to make to give results & advice.
It would be so sad if he was driven away from doing what he does & enriching people's lives beyond belief.
Yes he's very rich but he works at the clinic almost 7 days a week 7am -7pm & so is probably only rich because he doesn't have a spare second to go & spend any of his money!
I wish him all the best for the hearing & really hope he knows that there's a huge wall of support behind him.
xx


----------



## Caz

Juicy said:


> Caz, not sure if i am right but I read the stats as making the Lister the most successful clinic in London since they treat over three times as many patients as ARGC including 500 women over 40 ie about a third, whereas over 40s were less than 10% of the patients at ARGC. The Lister don't turn anyone away, not that I've heard anyway. ARGC wouldn't have taken me on at 35 with FSH of 13.5 but the Lister don't bat an eyelid.


I'm not an ARGC patient, I had tx at the Lister and naturally I'll be biased towards them (  ) I think the ARGC has many faults, to be honest and I've heard people here on FF have negative things to say about them from time to time (as with any clinic) but I hardly think you can dispute the fact that they get a LOT of people pregnant! 
I think the only meaningful way to look at success rates is as a percentage of live births overall. No point looking at pregnancy rates or at the over 40 category because that's not representative of the whole group or of what we all want at the end which is a healthy baby NOT a pregnancy. The Lister has 5 or 6 consultants managing care (I think, at last count) and ther ARGC has half as many so it's meaningless to say because they treat less patients overall they have less realistic statistics. If you add all the age ranges together then the ARGC is the most successful... according to the HFEA statistics anyway. And I think that's the problem because the HFEA statistics don't give the true picture because they don't, as you say, show you the patient profile of those patients - i.e. how "complicated" their IF issues are. The FSH thing being a case in point. I'm sorry to say to whomever dispute this point but the ARGC _do_ turn away patients with high FSH, albiet maybe not directly - it's one thing to say they like to see the FSH come down as low as possible but what if your FSH is never going to get below the magical level they like to see? Not everyone's will and, by extension they indirectly turn those patients away even though they may well go on and have successful treatment elsewhere. However the ARGC does also take on a lot of patients with mutiple failures elsewhere and treat them successfully so it's a bit swings and roundabouts - I guess you could say the ARGC simply doesn't "specialise" in high FSH patients where the Lister, for instance, does. So yes, the statistics are open to personal interpretation but I guess we should at least be grateful for the fact we do have someone regulating them and ensuring clinics do not missell themselves.



Josie21 said:


> Blu - I understand Mr T did win his BBC case.
> 
> However, they have *still* not paid up as they are now (using the delaying tactics of) questioning his legal costs & choice of lawyer! Of course, he should have gone for a cheaper lawyer when his reputation depended on it!  Are they imbeciles?!


Really? I thought the libel case was still outstanding. I know he won against the HFEA.  Learn something new eh!
Anyway if that's the case, considering the BBC were the ones whose poor journalism insitgated the need for proceedings in the first place that's a bit of a laugh to tell him how and with whom he should defend himself. 



mouse1 said:


> I don't know what worked or if it would have worked without the treatment but something did...


I think that's the gist of it! I had "immune tx" in the form of prednisolone and, honestly couldn't tell you if that's what made it work or not or I was just lucky this time and I've always had "doubts" I guess over the whole immune diagnosis but, I'll be honest and say I wouldn't want to cycle again without popping the preds. 
We are a very vulnerable group who will do, pretty much anything our consultants tell us we have to do to get pregnant. I think that's the gist of where the uproar over IVIG and immune testing comes from because the ARGC does a lot of it for a lot of patients. I've no doubt in my mind that there is - must be - something in it but until someone actually starts clinical trials and investigations and comes up with proof... well it's all just speculation and conjecture - educated speculation and conjecture, I'll grant you but all the same, and anything that has no officially recognised facts and figures, that hasn't been tested and trialled by third parties and endorsed by official bodies, will always come under suspicion. 
It always comes back to this. HFEA, GMC... whoever makes the rules; please sanction official testing and investigation into the whole area of immune fertility research and start making it easier for us vulnerable group (whom I have to believe you are only trying to protect and it's not a personal / political thing against Mr T. ...err...  ) to see exactly what immune tx means and how / if it can benefit us. Perhaps then you can either find a legitimate way to oust Mr T. as a charlitan or you can finally accept that the man is, actually, really rather good at making babies. 

C~x


----------



## Lesley08

Hope you dont mind me joining this discussion but for those who feel strongly that they have had good care from Mr T why dont you write to the General Med Council, it certainly cant hurt. I have no experience of this clinic but have to say I have heard a lot of positive reports of his care. my own feeling is that the press and public are still in a very general way anti-IVF and therefore prone to jumping on any potentially negative stories they can get especially with the HEF bill going through parliament. There is a lot of political leverage in this issue.

Lesley xx


----------



## bennyB

Yes, I think we should all do something about this.

Sure, all clinics get complaints but the reason that these two complaints against Mr T have been forwarded to the GMC, where he now faces hearings and his license is again under threat, is because of the HFEA vendetta against him. 

I was involved in the campaign last year to defend Mr T against the BBC and HFEA charges - all of which were successfully defended. The HFEA replaced their chief exec and part of their board because of a finding of bias in their actions. All of the charges against Mr T were dropped and the HFEA made a public apology to him in court.  . . and now this. These two cases are held over from that time and the HFEA have cultivated them and pushed them on to the GMC. I think this is scandalous. 

As someone who had a successful IVF cycle at ARGC back in 2004 and used the immunological treatment in a subsequent non-IVF pregnancy, my own experience of the clinic and Mr T has been amazing. Not only my two babies but the care and skill of the doctor left such an impression on me. I was offered IVig but declined it and noone put pressure on me to use it. I did use Humira and pred and thought that was enough, I didnt want to take anything else for the first attempt. All I said was that I preferred not to use it and that was fine, my decision. Also, I had the immune testing but when I was offered a third blood check while I was pregnant, I declined this too and no questions asked. Mr T was totally upfront about the experimental nature of the drugs and I made the adult decision to give it a go - this was not from being "desparate" or anything, like a PP suggested but because I weighed up the pros and cons and rationally decided it was a risk worth taking. 

As for IViG and other immunological tests, I doubt that there will ever be clear clinical trials - very few infertile woman would agree to them with the chance of falling into the placebo group. 

Anyway, perhaps we should do a mass mail-in to the GMC. I know that the public support for Mr T last time really had an impact. What do you think?

Cheryl


----------



## Lorna

Caz,

> It always comes back to this. HFEA, GMC... whoever makes the rules; please sanction 
> official testing and investigation into the whole area of immune fertility research and 
> start making it easier for us vulnerable group

If you read the HFEA Act 1990, the only 2 things that the HFEA is responsible for are
1) The Welfare of the Child and
2) Ensuring that everyone follows the rules, that they make

The Welfare of the Child principle, means, that they are responsible for the few cells in a Petri dish. They are *not* responsible for the unborn child. Or for the "born" child as they like to infer they are!

If you go to California, you will see what I mean. In California, you find that when they gave people a choice, people started making all sorts of ones. In order to prevent the less suitable ones from happening, they introduced very tough laws; with penalties. But what also happened, is that the courts found they got their knickers in a twist over assault cases, inheritance laws, and numerous other laws. In California they were forced to define what an unborn child is, and to make sure, that as many laws as they could, were applied to the unborn child.

These kind of laws give *REAL* protection to the unborn child, from fertilization to birth at 41.5 or more weeks. I think it is appalling, we don't have laws like that in the UK.

It also prevents all the sensationalist headlines. What happens when the child grows up, and reads all those attention grabbing stories in the press? Not good, IMO.

2) Ensuring that everyone follows the rules that they make

The HFEA has to write the rules. If you read government reports, as time goes on, the HFEA has written more and more rules. There is a huge millstone of bureaucracy, hanging around clinics' necks. Who do you think pays for all that extra paperwork? You of course. So on top of your 103 pounds, what do you pay, an extra 100 pounds per cycle, 200 pounds&#8230; I don't know, just so clinics can show they meet the rules.

And who checks the rules are good? Who is checking standards? The HFEA has come in for stick in the past, about low standards compared to other countries, about allowing clinics to continue to operate, while not meeting all the rules, and so on. After Mr Taranissi, who is going to professionally stand up to the HFEA, and say, the way you do things is not good enough?

IMO, it would be career suicide for anyone to criticise the HFEA.

I feel with Mr Taranissi the HFEA crossed a line. Might just me who feels like that, but I can't help compare the way HFEA behaves, with the way dictatorships behave. I did a goggle search on "characteristics of a dictatorship", and found things like the speech by Elián Gonzalez in Washington, D.C., http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=560 
He defined dictatorships as 
(1) one party rule; 
(2) imprisonment, torture and/or death for political crimes; 
(3) no freedom of speech and assembly; and 
(4) no ownership of (or confiscation of) private property.

We have one group ruling the whole show. Mr Taranissi criticised them, then found himself fighting for his career with the GMC, and fighting through the courts. That must have H***.

Do a goggle web search on "characteristics of a dictatorship" You come up with ones like Frank Warner's comments http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_warner/2005/03/common_characte.html 
No known successor is one trait. The one group ruling the whole show has, IMO, no known successor.

But getting back to that 103 pounds, charged "for monitoring your cycle". What does the HFEA do with it?

The HFEA isn't responsible for patient safety. It is the NHS drug monitoring group, that looks at complications arising from treatment, and has found that 2 women in the last 4 years have died of complications. Not the HFEA.

It isn't responsible for making sure British clinics stay top of the league tables. If infertility was under the NHS, then clinics would constantly have to show improvement. If you want to get pregnant, go abroad. British clinics are 17th out of 23 countries in Europe, 25th(? ? ?) in the world, and slipping down the tables.

Oh we are top of one table, costs. The most expensive place in Europe to do treatment. I know land prices are high, and so that pushes up costs for clinics, but, IMO, the 103 pounds monitoring charge, and all that bureaucracy doesn't help!

Caz, you ask why doesn't the HFEA sanction
> official testing and investigation
Well that would the mean the HFEA would have to initiate research, and it has no remit to do that. On the other hand it is supposed to kybosh unsuitable research. IMO there is a difference.

So Caz, under the current system, I can't see 
>official testing and investigation
happening, and I can see people like Mr Taranissi, being continuously hounded.

I think, the only way what you want is going to happen, is, if we change the system. Suggestions anyone?

Lorna


----------



## Flopsy

I just wish that the GMC would take other complaints about other doctors more seriously. I'm disabled and patients from my own group regularly complain to the GMC about doctors.

Yet the GMC takes no action even when faced with multiple complaints about multiple doctors.

Here we have some individual complaints and low and behold, the GMC takes action.

This is not their regular reaction and smells like a witch hunt.


----------



## Caz

I think it's perhaps a little bit of a stretch to suggest the actions of the HFEA are equivilent to a dictatorship (after all, nobody's been kidnapped and lined up against a wall and shot at midnight yet). I appreciate the analogy though and yes, agree there is that mentality there.



> IMO, it would be career suicide for anyone to criticise the HFEA.


Yes, and Mr T. has been known to voice his criticisms in the past. I think that explains a lot. 

Incidently, I'm, not in the least suggesting the HFEA themselves should be responible for paying or doing immune research, and that's why I said "whoever" because on a Saturday afternoon, having already failed to complete even one clue on the Telegraph crossword, there was no way my brain was going to be coming up with the correct governing body that does give the go-ahead for this kind of stuff. I think I was probably thinking of NICE but then...actually it's probably more complicated than that and, actually, I don't care to get into the who and what is repsonsible. The simplified version is I pay my taxes to other people to work that kind of stuff out for me and as a citizen I just know what I'd like to see as an end result. In this case that is, for a start, immune treatment recognised in infertility and licensed _if_ it can be show it works and, preferably why it works (albiet a lot of drugs we use work in ways we don't really understand and they're licensed). And I would also like the HFEA to start showing which clinics offer it on their Find A Clinic stats like they do with other fertility treatments, and some kind of research / officially sanctioned evidence out there to support its use. I recognise that won't happen until it's a licensed treatment in the UK. I daresay there will be any number of private fertility experts who will be happy to do the research and fund it out of their own profits pockets which, face it, is what is really happening at the moment but with nobody actually listening or looking over their shoulder to see if they have a good point.



Flopsy said:


> I just wish that the GMC would take other complaints about other doctors more seriously. I'm disabled and patients from my own group regularly complain to the GMC about doctors.
> 
> Yet the GMC takes no action even when faced with multiple complaints about multiple doctors.
> 
> Here we have some individual complaints and low and behold, the GMC takes action.
> 
> This is not their regular reaction and smells like a witch hunt.


This is what is not sitting comfortable with me. I know lots of doctors do come up for review for complaints and I imagine we don't hear the half of it (and only hear about this because Mr T. is so successful and controversial) but it does seem - at first anyway unless there's more to this than is being reported - that two individual complaints are being given an awful lot of priority. I do't want to belittle those complaints because I am sure the complainees feel they have a geniune casue to do so but when you see some of the shocking things that are said and done by medical professionals and not taken further. Do you remember this thread in peer support? http://www.fertilityfriends.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=108803.0 
And that only scratches the surface; if you look around FF in detail you'll see plenty of insensitive treatment or poor medical care.

C~x


----------



## Betty M

There are a number of hoops a complainant has to jump through before a complaint gets as far as a GMC hearing starting with making a formal complaint to a hospital/clinic. I would imagine that unless people feel really strongly about it or had something totally dreadful they just don't bother given that it will take ages and be a lot of stress and hassle unless like me they are in a profession/business where this kind of thing is their day job so it isn't actually much work. I have met some lawyers from the GMC and to think they don't go after drs is a total misrepresentation. It is just that usually it is not news in the wider sense (like Andrew Wakefield for eg) unless they have killed people when the GMC is in fact the least of their worries. 

Criticism of the HFEA is not necessarily career suicide - Robert Winston thinks they are pretty useless and has said so and it has not done him any discernible harm. 

As to who should fund the research how about the people who say it works? That is what usually happens - dr or scientist at drug co A or dr at hospital B thinks they have found something/has a theory which they want to test and goes to the Medical Research Council/Drug co A/ charitable foundation D and pays for it. Nothing to do with the HFEA or NICE. There is nothing to stop a clinic funding the research if it wanted to. My NHS clinic did a lot of research so it is not impossible. It would take lots of time to develop a proper clinical trial and it would need to be a placebo controlled double blind trial so perhaps the clinics who favour IVIG etc don't want to as that would mean that some suitable patients wouldn't be getting what they think they need for successful treatment. There are however ways to get such a trial through an ethics committee and I think of a lot of people would like the chance of an ARGC cycle free even if there was a chance that they were getting a placebo not IVIG given that for vast swathes of people the prospect of £10k on a cycle with IVIG is beyond the realms of affordability. In essence I think they should put their money where their mouths are on this one. 

Betty


----------



## Han72

Betty M said:


> Criticism of the HFEA is not necessarily career suicide - Robert Winston thinks they are pretty useless and has said so and it has not done him any discernible harm.
> Betty


This might sound a bit mad, but is it possible that there is some individual somewhere, in a position of great influence who feels that they have been personally slighted by Mr T and is determined to bring him down by any means necessary....? I mean, what other explanation could there be for such a ferocious witch hunt? As you say, Betty, Mr T is not the only doctor the GMC have disciplined for lesser issues than the death of a patient. But why has this particular case made the press when so many others don't? Did someone feed it to them...?

No, sorry there is one other possibility - I hate to be the one to say it, but there's one major difference between Sir Bob and Mr Taranissi... the clue is in the names. But I prefer to think that we've come further than that in the UK (the current issues within the Met police force notwithstanding) so I'll stick with my personal vendetta theory.

Whatever the reasoning behind it, the whole thing stinks to high heaven, it really does, so count me in for any kind of mass mail-in to the GMC. As Caz and Flopsy have pointed out, there are some real bad eggs out there, I'd prefer it if the GMC and the media concentrated on them, rather than on someone who has dedicated himself to helping people, keeps his clinic open 7 days a week and apparently takes time to review everybodys' file personally. I know there's some debate about the ARGC's attitude towards those with high FSH, but I really feel this is less about the clinic's success rates and more about Mr T's personal belief that he'd rather not have you spend thousands on multiple tx at the ARGC because he feels it is less likely to work. Obviously people with high FSH have gone on to have successful cycles elsewhere, but every doctor has his "blind spot" as it were and it seems FSH is his.

Yeah, sure, he's got one eye on the league tables (let's face it, his living depends on it, he'd be an idiot if he didn't) but if he was really a money-grabber, surely he'd treat everyone, regardless of hormone levels...? And if he doesn't have his patients' best interests at heart, why does he work such punishing hours?

So bring on the mass mail, you know me, I love a scrap and I HATE to see people being picked on! I'll even draft it if you like....

xxx


----------



## lily67

I read in the Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2825007/Fertility-doctor-Mohamed-Taranissi-to-face-fitness-to-practice-hearing.html that these 2 cases had been investigated by the HFEA in *2004(!) * and Mr T had been cleared.

So, something stinks here. They have been encouraged to bring these cases by whom exactly?

It will be a sad day when he decides that enough is enough


----------



## Josie21

It wouldn't suprise me Lily.   

I'm convinced that one of the "losers" - on whom this witch-hunt backfired (HFEA, BBC, etc) - is behind this.  Based on what I saw at our last meeting, I am terrified Mr T will shortly think enough is enough and leave us in the UK.


----------



## katz

I think it's awful the way Mr T is picked on - there are so many drugs used in unlicenced ways (viagra anyone - still not licenced for fertility treatment, I don't think) and that's right across the nhs.  It's the way progress is made in many cases.

It seems very strange to me that a person who is not confident enough to question closely the advice given (eg feels pushed into tests and treatments) is confident enough to push for a gmc hearing  . So what you suggest, Lily, is quite worrying.


----------



## Guest

katz said:


> It seems very strange to me that a person who is not confident enough to question closely the advice given (eg feels pushed into tests and treatments) is confident enough to push for a gmc hearing .


Spot on Katz  ...though even more worrying is that perhaps some vulnerable women have been driven to do this by others with an agenda?   

xxx


----------



## ekhf

Hi I also spotted this in the paper too.  I am sure these people complaining wouldn't have if their treatment was successful, you always get them in life, the pain in the bums that spoil it for everybody else!

I have just had a failed cycle with Kings College and I don't blame them, in fact I was completely the opposite and praised them for their good care.

What made me laugh in the article it said that Mr T charges £2500 for a basis IVF treatment - get real that is the going rate.

I am actually not going to use Mr T for next cycle but if this one fails intend to use him and nothing I read in the papers would put me off.  I think he is fanastic and I do hope he clears his name again.

Sad horrible people - thats all I have to say!

E x


----------



## Betty M

Just because a person doesn't like the treatment they have had at ARGC and are moved to complain and takes it to the highest level (presumably because they have had no joy with ARGC's internal complaints process) it does not mean they are sad and horrible, diverting their disappointments, pursing a vendetta or indulging in a witch hunt or being manipulated by a mysterious cabal of the HFEA/BBC/other fertility doctors or being racist as someone below seemed to suggest. Law of averages would suggest that not everyone can have a fabulous time at any clinic no matter how good and no one is infallible. The complainers are fellow infertile women going through treatment and I have to say I am pretty shocked that people are prepared to be so unsupportive and judgmental. For all you know they could be here on this site and they are as deserving of support as anyone else here. In other contexts generally FF pull together to encourage to complain about what they feel to have been shoddy treatment. We don't know what happened to these women and so we shouldn't presume to pass judgment. If their complaints are unfounded or there are good reasons for whatever happened having happened the case will get thrown out. 

Betty


----------



## Blu

Betty I agree with you, no clinic or individual Doctor is perfect and everyone has the right to complain (I was less than happy with my first clinic but know many others have had positive experiences there). I think the problem lies with the press, they certainly don't report every complaint that goes to the GMC - just those that will stir up a reaction. I'm sure every clinic has had it's share of complaints over the years....

As you said, these women have also been down the IF path and deserve our support on their IF journey. Mr T deserves the support of those who have been happy with his care. And the media need to be ignored   we need to be careful that we are not copying their behaviour by jumping to conclusions based on limited information.

Blu


----------



## Han72

Betty M said:


> Just because a person doesn't like the treatment they have had at ARGC and are moved to complain and takes it to the highest level (presumably because they have had no joy with ARGC's internal complaints process) it does not mean they are sad and horrible, diverting their disappointments, pursing a vendetta or indulging in a witch hunt or being manipulated by a mysterious cabal of the HFEA/BBC/other fertility doctors or being racist as someone below seemed to suggest. Law of averages would suggest that not everyone can have a fabulous time at any clinic no matter how good and no one is infallible. The complainers are fellow infertile women going through treatment and I have to say I am pretty shocked that people are prepared to be so unsupportive and judgmental. For all you know they could be here on this site and they are as deserving of support as anyone else here. In other contexts generally FF pull together to encourage to complain about what they feel to have been shoddy treatment. We don't know what happened to these women and so we shouldn't presume to pass judgment. If their complaints are unfounded or there are good reasons for whatever happened having happened the case will get thrown out.
> 
> Betty


Er, I never said the women involved didn't have good reason to complain, or that they shouldn't have taken advantage of their right to do so. Nor did I say there was any "cabal". I DID say that I think there is something fishy about the way this doctor is being hounded and I cited the only 2 explanations I could think of.

At no time did I say that the _patients_ were racist and I certainly didn't mean to insinuate that there was a posse in white hoods burning crosses outside the clinic! I do think I made it clear that I think it's unlikely that it is related to race, but it is a possibilty, no matter how unpalatable it might seem. I suspect there is an INDIVIDUAL with an axe to grind, for whatever reason, and this person is in a position to ensure that Mr T gets the maximum amount of grief and bad publicity off the back of these complaints. Otherwise, why is it that these 2 complaints are getting so much media coverage when the GMC must deal with this kind of thing on a daily basis? Why did the complaints get to this stage at all when you compare them to some of the horrors that are detailed on the link which Caz posted previously?

So let me reiterate, speaking for myself, my issue is related to the way these complaints are being dealt with, both by the media and the GMC, not with the patients who complained in the first instance. I think anyone that has read any of my posts on this website knows me better than to think that I would ever be judgemental of any fellow sufferer and I'd say that I'm probably a lot more open-minded than most so, with all due respect Betty, I think you may have misinterpreted what I was trying to say. Perhaps you'd like to review your post in the light of this clarification...?


----------



## Betty M

Nix - my comments were not directed at your post specifically - other than the suggestion there was a racist element which I accept is one explanation but I like you think it is an unlikely one - but referred to an amalgam of various things that have been said by various people on the thread. I stand by my post in that respect. I don't know who the individual is that you suspect of being behind this but anything Mr T does is news because of his reputation as the UK's richest dr so all it will take is one press release (and all the papers that have run the story have just regurgitated the same thing) so perhaps maybe it is not so surprising it gets picked up. 
Betty


----------



## Flopsy

DR T is the fourth doctor in my range of medical "interests" that is being brought before the GMC in the last couple of years.

Although members of my own medical support group (for a disease totally unrelated to infertility) do feel strongly and do fight through the complaints process, the GMC ignores our own efforts, to get truly dangerous and unprofessional doctors brought before them.

The GMC has been targetting doctors that offer treatments not approved by NICE and not normally available through the NHS. Experimental treatments. The GMC is trying to restrict the practice of medicine and our choices.

One of the cases we dealt with recently as a patient group, was a complaint that a prominent NHS doctor had brought against a doctor in a private practice. It stinks, it's corrupt.

I support the right for all patients to make complaints and be heard. However (in my extensive experience) we do not have a level playing field in the GMC.


----------



## bluesky510

I was really sad to read this - Mr Taranissi was kind, compassionate, dedicated and took a personal interest at every stage.

I hope the GMC have better things to do than to listen to the allegations of two people when there are hundreds and hundreds of people who, I am sure, feel they owe a huge amount of happiness to him and his team.

Kitty


----------



## slinkyfish

Through this man's shear hard work and dedication, a lot of us have our beautiful families. I have always found him to be honest, supportive and caring. Not once was I pushed into having any treatments I didn't need and the care I received right through treatment on all 3 occasions was superb!
To me this is so sad as yet again a man who is dedicated to pushing his field of medicine forward and helping those of us with fertility problems is being dragged through the mill.

I just hope common sense prevails


----------



## bennyB

Here is a more accurate account:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/health/health/article1682735.ece


----------



## Lorna

There was one error

> Taxpayers were left facing a legal bill of up to £1million after a High Court ruling that 
> warrants obtained by the HFEA for the raids were “unlawful”. 

The tax payer only pays a small part of the HFEA costs.  Guess who pays the rest of the HFEA's operating costs, and therefore guess who is paying that £1million bill for the legal fees - of course patients are

Lorna


----------



## bennyB

Betty, I beg to differ. 

These are two complaints which the HFEA have already investigated and found no basis for. Fact. Of course we want to be supportive of patients with real problems or concerns but when it is clearly people jumping on the "get Taranissi" bandwagon on the back of the hfea and the BBC, probably hoping to make a buck, then I lose patience. Just because someone cries "wolf", does not make it so. And clearly, all of our experiences of the ARGC contradict it - and especially Mr T who is SUCH a kind and caring doctor. 

I am certainly not suggesting a conspiracy but the hfea certainly have issues with Mr T and the ARGC. My own feeling is that it probably comes out of a combination of professional jealousy, racism (sadly), and the fact that MR T's clinic is in the forefront of all the experimental, cutting-edge treatments that they so hate and want to regulate and restrain. They are guided by a precautionary principle which sadly hampers scientific advance.

Most people know that the HFEA were found to be guilty of obtaining illegal warrants and raiding the ARGC to a timescale dictated by the BBC. Outrageous. The warrants were revoked, the HFEA had to make a formal apology in court to Mr T, the hfea have now also changed their Chief Exec because Angela McNab's position became untenable given her involvement in seeking the illegal warrants. And on. 

Most people are not aware, however, that the HFEA's licensing committee were later found by a judicial review to have been acting with "apparent bias" when they refused Mr T his "Person Responsible" position and continuation of licenses. Mr T kept this under wraps because he felt that the hfea had had enough bad publicity and hopefully, it could all be put behind everyone. 

Some hope! The HFEA are now referring these two unsubstantiated complaints to the GMC. It is a mockery of fairness and justice. 

Nix and I are going to get together a formal letter in support of Mr T to try to limit the damage these allegations are going to do to his reputation, and hopefully show the GMC what kind of doctor he really is. If you would like to become a signatory to this letter, then please send me a personal message - along with your own statement of support, if you wish. I will include everyone on the letter. I did a similar thing in the campaign to defend Mr T against the HFEA and we had around 100 signatories. I think it had a real impact on the outcome. So, please so get in touch. Details of your treatment (whether successful or not) would also help but keep the statements relatively short, 2 or 3 sentences. 

Cheers
Cherylx


----------



## Emma74 aka Emmett

Cheryl i have pm'd you


----------



## bennyB

Thanks for the messages so far - remember to include your FULL name and preferably town of residence on your signature - thanks!!


----------



## slinkyfish

Sorry but I had to laugh about the allegations of him being "insensitive, lacking in compassion and defensive". As a Nurse, if I had a quid for every Doctor / Consultant I'd heard behaving in this way towards patients I'd have enough money to pay for *all* our treatment cycles 3 times over! Don't see them being dragged in front of the GMC though!!!!!

By the way I have always found him to be quite the opposite!


----------



## Han72

slinkyfish said:


> Sorry but I had to laugh about the allegations of him being "insensitive, lacking in compassion and defensive".... if I had a quid for every Doctor / Consultant I'd heard behaving in this way towards patients I'd have enough money to pay for *all* our treatment cycles 3 times over! Don't see them being dragged in front of the GMC though!!!!!


Absolutely!


----------



## Flopsy

Agree with that Slinkyfish,

I had some appalling treatment at the Hammersmith Hospital including one Consultant who refused to see me unless I was weighed one afternoon. I was there after a failed cycle and it was very raw and painful.

I just wanted to go into the review to see why the cycle had failed and ended up being marched by a nurse to a set of scales and then a humilating interview with the conusltant who told me that was weight was the entire and absolute reason for the implantaion failure.

None of them could explain the severe reactions I had in the 2ww.

Many of the NHS consultants I saw simply would not survive in the "real world" of paying customers.


----------



## Penpot

Uh oh, going to see him next week.

Slightly concerned as a journalist described come round after general anesthetic as "similar to waking up in a morgue".

Any other view points?!


----------



## Yellowheart

Oh gosh that is outrageous


----------



## Caz

Penpot said:


> Uh oh, going to see him next week.
> 
> Slightly concerned as a journalist described come round after general anesthetic as "similar to waking up in a morgue".
> 
> Any other view points?!


Penpot, as far as Dr T, or anyone esle for that matter, is concerned, my advice is to ignore what you read about, go along for the consult and make up your own mind.

FWIW, waking up from a GA is never going to top the list as the world's most wonderful feeling! 

C~x


----------



## slinkyfish

Having been in a Morgue on several occasions and having woken up after a GA, I can safely say there is very little similarity between the 2!! What a bizarre thing to write!! Sorry, am I missing something here?


----------



## mountainlion

Just my thoughts;

Going into a GMC hearing can be a lose:lose situation. In my opinion if the GMC really wants to get you, then if you manage to successfully clear you name regarding the main allegation, then it will get you any way for minor infringements of its rules. [These minor infringements may constitute things that most other doctors would totally innocently commit without realising it on a very frequent basis. These are often paperwork or technical issuses.]

Unfortunately I believe that Mr T may well be cleared of the more major issue, but they will nail him for some very minor technical issues which will possibly result in him being suspended for 6 months rather than erased from the list. When worded this can be made to sound much worse than it is, as they will bring all these minor charges together [many are just multiples of the same single charge], so it will end up being for example 'Guilty of 56 charges' which sounds much better in a newpaper headline.

I believe fertility treatment in the UK will not advance at the speed it should if Mr T is erased or even if he is 'just' suspended.


----------



## Han72

Are you serious?  So what happens to those of us currently doing/about to do tx at the ARGC if he gets suspended?  All the clinical decisions go through him...


----------



## slinkyfish

IF that happens they have to continue and complete existing treatment cycles but he wont be able to start new ones. Alternatively could someone continue in his place maybe?? I wouldn't worry about that yet though as it may not happen. Personally I think it'll be fine, he may just get a smack on the hand. In view of all the BBC / HFEA's proven witch hunt I doubt it'll go further.


----------



## Guest

It is all totally ridiculous - the poor man


----------



## Caz

Yes, slinkyfish, when this all blew up before over the Panorama / HFEA raids thing then it was said if he was shut down / suspended he would still be allowed to continue treating all patients currently undergoing treatment, just not start new ones.

In any event, I imagine he's have chance to appeal (would he? ) or wind things down and so it might take some time before any "sentence" would be carried out. I don't think anyone currently seeking treatment there in, say, the next 6 months need worry unduly. If (and it's a BIG If) he gets suspended then I think, sadly for the UK, he might just go elsewhere as he has been threatening to do for so many years. 



> [These minor infringements may constitute things that most other doctors would totally innocently commit without realising it on a very frequent basis. These are often paperwork or technical issuses.]


And, to be fair, Mr T. has shown in the past that paperwork is not his strong suit (read the inspection reports - yes, yes, I know they are done by the HFEA so possibility of bias but facts are facts). I personally think - along with the fact he's not afraid to challenge the rules and speak up against the bureaucracy of it all - this is why the HFEA etc. seem to be so very biased against him. He does get rather defensive about things and choses to make fairly public challenges back and it does himself no favours, even if he has a good point or is in the right. It's a shame though because you'd expect authorities like HFEA GMC etc. could see past personality clashes and do what's for the good of the patients. He's not perfect (who is!) but far from malicious and evil and, I really do think he believes in his just wants to get ladies pregnant above everything else. Let's hope there is still someone at the GMC who has the sense to cut through all the crap and do what's right.

C~x


----------



## bennyB

There is nothing "fair" about any of this. 

The hearings start on Monday but the press interest is already perked. If anyone fancies going on the telly or radio or helping respond to any press enquiries about the patient's support for Mr T, please PM me to let me know. They are already rolling in and I have not even done the press release yet!

I hope I am not infringing FF rules by posting this here. 

Cheryl x


----------



## Flopsy

Just for the information of people here about other problems with the GMC

EDM 1745 - General Medical Council Complaints System

Daniel Kawczynski, MP for Shrewsbury and Atsham, has headed an Early Day Motion in respect of the GMC.

If you believe that the complaints mechanism of the GMC fails to comply with standards of fairness and due process required by the European Convention on Human Rights, then perhaps you should ask your Member of Parliament to sign it.

----------------

Early Day Motion - EDM 1745

GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL COMPLAINTS SYSTEM

10.06.2008

Kawczynski, Daniel

That this House believes that the General Medical Council's (GMC) complaints mechanism fails to comply with standards of fairness and due process required by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights; observes that the GMC's role in investigating, prosecuting and sentencing falls below the standard required of an independent and impartial tribunal; notes that in practice the GMC represents the interest of parents in cases where doctors suspect abuse; further notes that children themselves have no independent representation to present a doctor's concerns; further believes that no published guidelines appear to guide prosecution decisions and that, as prosecutor, the GMC amends and adds charges in an ad hoc fashion; considers that doctors are uncertain of the allegations they face, compromising their ability to mount a cogent defence; further considers that the GMC calls expert witnesses with clear conflicts of interest in the proceedings who are unrepresentative of mainstream practice or opinion, and that the GMC adopts a populist, punitive, deterrent and disproportionate approach to sentencing; further considers that the GMC's apparently arbitrary admission and exclusion of evidence extends to ignoring the findings of previous investigations into a case conducted by an accused doctor's employer; further believes that the GMC values the public perception and integrity of the profession above individual rights; and further observes that, contrary to basic principles of justice, the GMC appears to assume the guilt of doctors before it, and refuses to acquit when a conviction is impossible, instead finding 'no realistic prospect of prosecution'.

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=36031&SESSION=891


----------



## Han72

Hi ladies

just an FYI, I asked at the clinic and was told that if things come to a head then Mr T doesn't take on any new cases and one of the senor consultants takes his place.  People already undergoing treatment continue to be seen/reviewed by Mr T.

However even this person (I won't name her as I don't have her permission to quote her) mentioned the possibility that Mr T might just pack his bags if this hounding continues...

So those of you who are concerned, but haven't yet signed the letter, please take the time to PM me or BennyB with either just your name and location or a statement of support.  It could be what makes the difference between him deciding to stay or leave.

Many thanks
Nix


----------



## Blu

This is good news though....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4834332.ece


----------



## lily67

Nix, 

Can I suggest that you post that on the Mad Chatters, ARGC part 153 and Potty ARGCers threads as there may be some poeple who haven't seen it who wish to send in a message of support.

Thanks again to both you and Cheryl for doing this.

Lx


----------



## bennyB

Just to clarify - the letter with signatures has already been sent to the GMC. However, if you would really like to offer support but did not get to it in time, then please do send in an independent letter to the GMC. You can find the details and address etc on their website. 

I think the hearing was delayed today - something to do with hfea not delivering the correct documentation.

Cheryl x


----------



## lily67

bennyB said:


> I think the hearing was delayed today - something to do with hfea not delivering the correct documentation.


Cheryl

That just about sums them up doesn't it?


----------



## Caz

Oh the irony! 

C~x


----------



## Han72

lily67 said:


> bennyB said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the hearing was delayed today - something to do with hfea not delivering the correct documentation.
> 
> 
> 
> Cheryl
> 
> That just about sums them up doesn't it?
Click to expand...




Caz said:


> Oh the irony!
> 
> C~x


   You couldn't make it up


----------



## Han72

Hi all

for those of you who aren't already aware, the GMC has decided not to pursue it's investigation of Mohammed Taranissi and the ARGC clinic due, unsurprisingly, to insufficient evidence!

Thanks to everybody who took the time to sign the petition or to write to the GMC  Please click on the link below for further details from the BBC (who, also unsurprisingly, have "forgotten" to mention the fact that they've already made a partial settlement in the libel case that Mr T brought against them...)

Thanks again everybody!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7686653.stm

Nix
xxx


----------



## Anthony Reid

Thanks Nix,

Hopefully this will be the end of it.


----------

