Legal correspondence from Law Firm representing suspended GP, Dr Sam White to:
Exclusively Employment Law Solicitors
Sir Simon Stevens
Chief Executive Officer
NHS England
2 July 2021
Dear Mr Stevens
Re: My Client: Dr Sam White
I am instructed by Dr Sam White, a GP. Dr Sam White has had his licence to practise within the NHS suspended by letter from the NHS dated 26 June 2021.
Please treat this letter as a public interest disclosure or whistle blow in that it raises allegations of alleged criminal conduct and breach of legal obligations by those leading the covid response.
The reasons given for my client ’s suspension have been inconsistent. My client has been told one thing verbally and another in writing.
What my client has been told in writing is he has been suspended on the basis of his social media output.
My client ’s social media output does not differ in any material extent to other clinicians also with an online presence who have not been suspended. My client raised concerns during his NHS five year revalidation appraisal process with the NHS in November 2020.
All of these concerns were raised during the revalidation appraisal process and overlap with what is in my client ’s social media content.
The NHS took no action on either the substance of the concerns raised in my client ’s appraisal nor did the NHS take any action against my client for raising those concerns during his appraisal. My client ’s appraisal was signed off by the NHS Responsible Person. The same Responsible Person who later suspended my client.
It would appear that the reason the NHS took the action they did of suspending my client from practice in the NHS was the fact that the contents of Dr White ’s video went viral clocking up over a million views in June 2021.
The NHS appears to have taken umbrage at my client letting the cat out of the bag. The NHS appear to have acted in the way they did because my client pointed out that there are a number of elephants in the room. My client is entitled to point out alleged wrong doing and is also entitled not to be victimised for so doing.
My client ’s social media output sets out two main propositions which are further developed here:
1. The vaccine programme has been rolled out in breach of the legal requirements for clinicians to obtain the free and informed consent of those being vaccinated.
2. That the requirement to wear face coverings in an NHS setting is in breach of common law obligations not to cause harm and breaches statutory obligations in relation to provision of PPE.
My client has instructed me to write to you setting out the complaint that he has been victimised and harassed for telling the truth by the organisation you head. Clinicians should feel able to voice genuine concerns relating to alleged malpractice without fear for their ability to practice within the NHS being suspended. The truth that Dr White is telling may be uncomfortable for you to hear. But hear it you
must.
I am instructed to copy this letter to the relevant regulators as well as law enforcement.
I am also instructed by my client to publish this letter on social media as the public has the right to know what is happening and how truth is being suppressed.
The allegations are that the following groups of people have committed unlawful and potentially criminal acts in breach of their common law obligations to act in the best interests of the public as well as in breach of their common law obligation of doing no harm to the public.
The Nolan Principles of Standards in Public Life are alleged to have been breached.
The groups of people who my client alleges have breached common law obligations
are:
1. HM Government.
2. The Executive Board of the NHS.
3. SAGE.
4. Senior public office holders within the civil service.
5. The Executive Board of the MHRA.
In relation to the MHRA they have failed to ensure that the vaccine advertising programme meets their common law obligations as well as their statutory obligations. The MHRA in granting emergency use authorisation for the vaccines has failed in their obligation to consider whether there are safe and effective medicines available as an alternative to vaccination.
The MHRA is failing in its obligations in failing either to instruct a bio-distribution study is conducted on those who have been vaccinated or in failing to publish the findings of such a bio-distribution study. A bio-distribution study is a study of what happens to the vaccine after it is injected into the body.
I am instructed to set out the factual allegations in a comprehensible way, free of jargon, so the general public can follow what is being said.
To assist my client has provided source material to back up every single one of his principal facts and that source material will be referenced via footnotes or endnotes.
The Vaccination Roll Out:
Clinicians practising within the NHS are obliged to do two things when administering a
vaccine:
1. To do no harm.
2. To obtain the free and informed consent of those being vaccinated.
The law on free and informed consent is set out in the case of Montgomery. Montgomery ’s case which went to the Supreme Court laid down the principles for what amounts to free and informed consent.
Montgomery ’s case which went to the Supreme Court laid down the principles for what amounts to free and informed consent.
1. That the patient is given sufficient information – to allow individuals to make choices that will affect their health and well being on proper information.1
2. Sufficient information means informing the patient of the availability of other
treatments.2
3. That the patient is informed of the material risks of taking the vaccine and the
material risks of declining the vaccine.
The Montgomery principles are in line with Article 6 of the Unesco Declaration of Bio-Ethics and Human Rights, the right to decline any medical treatment without being
penalised is enshrined in International Law.3
Foot Notes:
1 Per Lord Justice Simon in Webster v Burton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2017] EWCA
Civ 62
2 Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11
3 php-URL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
see attached letter – Letter-to-Sir-Simon-Stevens (1)(1)
SUPPORT SAM