The doctor who preyed on the vulnerable
A doctor who carried out controversial stem cell treatments has been struck off by the General Medical Council. .
Jump to more content from this blog
About this blog
As Newsnight's science editor I meet some of the most interesting people around. They might be trying to understand the Arctic or the latest flu virus, or working on new ways to treat cancer, produce energy or feed the world. Along with policy makers and shapers of all political shades, they offer a challenging perspective on today's world, and a tantalising glimpse of the future.
For the latest updates across ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ blogs,
visit the Blogs homepage.
Subscribe to Newsnight: Susan Watts
You can stay up to date with Newsnight: Susan Watts via these feeds.
Newsnight: Susan Watts Feed(RSS)
Newsnight: Susan Watts Feed(ATOM)
If you aren't sure what RSS is you'll find useful.
Comment number 1.
At 11th Oct 2010, barriesingleton wrote:PRESUMABLY IT WOULD HAVE BEEN OK WERE HE NOT A DOCTOR?
The list of ways in which the vulnerable ('vulnerable' takes many forms) are preyed on in this country, is so long I will not even attempt it.
Suffice it to say that the most persistent predation is from Westminster politics, and it reaches obscene depths at General Election when vast (untold) sums of dodgy money are spent in manipulating the vulnerable to vote for the devious.
However, as I have established, since the May election, Westminster politics is IMMUNE BY DESIGN, whereas the doctor met due process. I am still pursuing the 'liar flyer' that was distributed in over 18 constituencies. They (the political establishment) just don't want to know - the vulnerable can go hang.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 19th Oct 2010, CraigVine wrote:@barriesingleton
Patients with MS are not particularly vulnerable in the grand scheme of things? This comment is a most hilarious blanket statement and I can only wonder just how far such an individual must have been pushed to respond in such a way.
Surely when undergoing a medical procedure that you know very few details about (clouded, no doubt, by truck-loads of paperwork and carbon sheets) you would expect to be treated with such a treatment as you were expecting?
I would expect that any member of our esteemed political overhead would agree that there are few extenuating circumstances when considering who is "vulnerable", but what you are insinuating is absurd at best.
May I, at least for the time being, presume that you have misread this
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)