For the last two years I’ve been covering the rather sordid tale of medical malpractice among ethnic minority physicians, mainly in the UK (see here and here). In 2017, I conducted an analysis of Britain’s Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service’s list of tribunal decisions — an analysis that revealed non-British doctors (25% of the total) were responsible for at least 80% of tribunal cases in 2016, the vast majority of them bearing Muslim, South Asian, or African names. Most referrals to this disciplinary board were due to sexual abuse and related misconduct, negligence, incompetence, drug abuse, fraud, and violence. My explanation for this state of affairs was, and remains, straightforward. Britain, like much of the West, has for decades been subjecting its various public services to the enormous strain of mass migration. Lacking any sensible planning for the future, our governments have irrationally and repeatedly proposed to cure every one of these self-inflicted socio-economic problems via an injection of yet more “diversity.” As such, in contemporary Britain, massive pressures on the National Health Service caused by mass immigration are being “eased” via the mass immigration of dubiously-trained foreign doctors. The main result of this development has been the rapid decline in the quality of service offered by the NHS, the increased danger faced by patients, and the further expansion of multiculturalism into all areas of life. I have argued that the only sensible solution to this chaos is to conclusively bring the multicultural project to an end, to repatriate the surplus populations, and eject those whose dubious “skills” are no longer required. Now, some two years after I started examining this subject, both the BBC and the General Medical Council (GMC) have taken notice – but their conclusions are rather different.

The BBC reports:

Figures obtained by a BBC Freedom of Information request suggest the GMC is more likely to investigate complaints against BAME (Black and Minority Ethnic) doctors than those who are white. Black and Asian doctors make up around a third of the workforce in the UK but are over-represented in fitness to practice cases. The GMC said: “We know employers are more likely to refer BAME doctors than white doctors to the GMC. We want to understand why, and have commissioned independent experts to carry out a major piece of research into those disproportionate referrals.”

The language used here is a case study in how the Marxist media discusses the problematic behavior of ethnic minorities. The fact that Black and Minority Ethnic doctors are more likely to be reported to disciplinary tribunals is contorted in such a manner as to insinuate prejudice and oppression, even if no facts have yet been produced to suggest such a state of affairs. Thus we are told that the GMC is more likely to investigate complaints against BAME doctors than White doctors — the rhetorical door being left open to the idea that complaints against White doctors are being dismissed, or treated less seriously, rather than there simply being less complaints against White doctors. And whereas the next sentence makes it clear that hospital managers are indeed referring BAME doctors at a higher rate than White doctors, this is portrayed as somehow sinister, with the GMC launching a “major piece of research into these disproportionate referrals.”

The manipulative and evasive language on display here is very similar to that employed when discussing the disproportionate exclusion of Black students from schools. For example, the American Psychological Association “Zero Tolerance” Task Force has written that while African American students are over-represented in both suspension and expulsion, there is

No data supporting the assumption that African American students exhibit higher rates of disruption or violence that would warrant higher rates of discipline. Rather, African American students may be disciplined more severely for less serious or more subjective reasons. Emerging professional opinion and qualitative research findings suggest that the disproportionate discipline of students of color may be due to a lack of teacher preparation in classroom management or cultural competence.

However, as Richard Lynn remarks in his forthcoming Race Differences in Psychopathic Personality,

This is a remarkable assertion because the most common reason for school expulsions and suspensions is conduct disorders (also termed behavior problems or “oppositional defiance disorder”), consisting of excessive aggression, violence, disobedience, and criminal offenses such as drug dealing. … The most straightforward explanation for the race differences in school suspensions and expulsions is that these are the result of the differences in conduct disorders. … Whatever the explanation, the conclusion of the American Psychological Association Task Force that there are “no data supporting the assumption that African American students exhibit higher rates of disruption or violence that would warrant higher rates of discipline” can only be regarded as bizarre.

Like the American Psychological Association, Britain’s General Medical Council is engaging in a bizarre denial of reality, forming its own “task force” to investigate something that is already self-evident — ethnic minority doctors are a major problem and a danger to patients. Or rather, one suspects that the “major research” about to take place will not examine the background of those being referred (as I have done for the last two years), but instead target those “racists” making the referrals and complaints. One can almost hear explanations already, like “poor preparation in hospital management or cultural competence.” In other words, the massive over-representation of ethnic minority doctors in cases involving sexual abuse, negligence, incompetence, drug abuse, fraud, and violence will be explained entirely by the insidious and oppressive, yet always nebulous, presence of White racism.

Just how White racism has been able to prevail in the British medical system is difficult to explain given the rapidly declining representation of Whites in the medical profession and the formation of ethnic blocs, and often quite clear ethnic networking, in both the NHS and the General Medical Council, as well as higher legal spheres. An excellent example is that of Ronald Cohen, a Jewish anaesthetist who had restrictions imposed on his ability to practise medicine several years ago after it was discovered his pre-operative and post-operative care and assessment and his note-taking and note-keeping fell “significantly below the required standard.” As a result of his incompetence, one of Cohen’s patients was left so seriously ill that he will never walk independently again and will require 24-hour care for the rest of his life. Cohen was, however, fortunate enough to have his flimsy appeal heard, and granted, in the High Court by Judge Stephen Silber, a fellow Jew whose expertise normally lies in immigration appeals and granting British asylum to Third World migrants. Thereafter, Cohen was permitted to resume his profession without restrictions.

Stephen Silber: Cohen is good enough for the goyim.

Aside from being overruled by higher courts, the GMC also suffers from ethnic networking within the organisation, as well as now having a Jewish Chief Operating Officer (Susan Goldsmith) who has introduced a radical new “Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion Strategy.” Quite contrary to the growing list of raped and abused patients across Britain, Goldsmith has asserted that “the UK has an increasingly diverse medical workforce. This is a good thing.” Her strategy document continues:

The principles of equality, diversity and inclusion are critical to us being an effective regulator and employer. This strategy represents the first time the GMC have directly addressed the inclusion agenda, and I am hugely excited to be leading our work to build on the commitment and enthusiasm for inclusion displayed by our staff.

A major objective of the GMC under Goldsmith is to “increase the number of Black and Minority Ethnic and disabled job applicants who receive job offers, and improved career progression for groups of staff who are currently underrepresented at senior level, for example, women or Black and Minority Ethnic staff.” In other words, Goldsmith’s solution to the problematic results of diversity within the GMC will be to radically increase the level of diversity in the GMC.

Susan Goldsmith: “The UK has an increasingly diverse medical workforce. This is a good thing.”

This is despite the fact it’s difficult to imagine how the GMC can become more diverse. The organization already has a “Black and Minority Ethnic Doctors’ Forum” that is home to the Association of Pakistani Physicians and Surgeons, the British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin, the British Sikh Doctors Organisation, the Egyptian Medical Society, the Indian Medical Association, the Medical Association of Nigerians across Great Britain, the Progressive Muslims Forum, and the Sri-Lankan Medical and Dental Association in the UK. And these groups have very aggressively fought for their interests in terms of accessing jobs and positions of influence in the UK medical establishment. In 2013, the Royal College of General Practitioners threatened to sue the British Medical Journal (BMJ) after it published a dubious article claiming that “subjective bias owing to racial discrimination” could not be ruled out as a reason for consistently high failures rates among Black and Asian trainees taking the Membership of the Royal College of General Practitioners (MRCGP) exam. Faced with these allegations, the Royal College of General Practitioners maintained that Black and Asian failure rates were due to the inadequacy and incompetence of the applicants, and stated that any allegations of “discrimination” were defamatory. The article at the heart of the debate was written by Aneez Esmail, an Indian General Practitioner and member of the British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin. This organization simultaneously sought a judicial review against the Royal College of General Practitioners over low pass rates for doctors from ethnic minorities in the clinical skills assessment (CSA) component of the exam, which involves a mock consultation, with an actor posing as the patient. Esmail’s own research found that “ethnic minority doctors trained in the UK were four times more likely to fail the exam at the first attempt than UK-trained White candidates, while ethnic minority doctors trained abroad were 14 times more likely to fail.” However, follow-up investigation by the GMC found “no evidence of discrimination.” The legal case was simply an example of ethnic minority doctors attempting to strengthen their representation in the medical establishment despite the clear fact that most of their co-ethnic candidates were beneath the accepted standard to practise medicine.

One of the more frustrating aspects of the latest call to “investigate” ethnic minority over-representation in medical misconduct or failure is thus, as seen in the above case, that we’ve been here several times before. In 2014, the UK medical webzine PulseToday published a story confirming that “Black and ethnic minority doctors from the UK are 30% more likely than white UK medical graduates to have a complaint made against them and twice as likely to face sanctions from the GMC.” In response, a number of studies were undertaken in order to determine if “systematic prejudice” was in play, all of which, as the GMC noted in 2018, “found that the GMC’s processes do not introduce disproportionality in investigations into doctors.” A pattern has thus emerged in which ethnic minority doctors continually fail exams and attract very serious complaints, leading to investigations that are commenced with the explicit intention of finding that the disproportionality is due to systemic prejudice and discrimination. These investigations then fail to find any evidence of systemic prejudice and discrimination, and the issue of ethnic disproportionality is then quietly dropped for a year or two. The problem is then “rediscovered,” triggering a new wave of investigations that are commenced with the explicit intention of finding that the disproportionality is due to systemic prejudice and discrimination.

Because the real answer, that Blacks and ethnic minority doctors are more dangerous and incompetent, is simply unacceptable in the current zeitgeist, these studies will continue to be commissioned. The latest exercise in futility will be led by Roger Kline, a Research Fellow at England’s Middlesex University Business School. Kline is custom-built to provide an “acceptable” answer to the question of ethnic minority doctors, having previously written of his background:

My parents were Jewish. … They would be horrified at the post Brexit referendum hysteria which has demonised anyone who looks or sounds different. My parents were part of a generation where such talk led to a slippery slope of attacks, of wearing badges to show you were Jewish, and eventually the concentration camps. We are a very long way from that at present, but the time to stop the slide is now. So that’s where some of my ethics come from and that’s why I am here today. … I owe, we all owe, a great deal to people from every corner of the world without whom the NHS would collapse overnight. Yet despite this, discrimination against such staff whose parents or grandparents are from overseas is rife in the NHS.

So clearly Dr Kline will be an entirely objective investigator, following the perfectly logical, and not remotely hyperbolic, chain of argument that complaining about and reporting the misconduct of ethnic minority doctors will lead to concentration camps and the overnight collapse of the National Health Service.

Roger Kline: “We all owe, a great deal to people from every corner of the world without

whom the NHS would collapse overnight.”

In truth, Kline has a considerable history of anti-White intellectual activism in the National Health Service, having previously written “Discrimination by Appointment: How Black and minority ethnic applicants are disadvantaged by NHS staff recruitment,” (2013) and “The ‘snowy white peaks’ of the NHS: a survey of discrimination in governance and leadership and the potential impact on patient care in London and England.” (2014) Contrary to all available evidence from the GMC disciplinary panels, and the failure rates of ethnic minorities in examinations, Kline begins the latter article with the assertion that “there is increasingly robust evidence” that a “diverse workforce” is “linked to good patient care.” Ethnic minorities fail so many exams because, argues Kline, NHS recruitment processes “disproportionately favour white applicants.” To redress the alleged discrimination, Kline proposes a radical diversification of the UK medical establishment, changing it (p.5) “once and for all.” As part of his 2014 research, Kline also contacted one local NHS Trust to “challenge” it for “disproportionate disciplinary action against BME staff.” The Trust responded by stressing that “there was no indication that managers focused more on BME staff, and that its data was broadly in line with national figures, citing a report from NHS Employers in 2010.”

Essentially then, the local Trust insisted that their Black and minority ethnic medics were more likely to be a danger to patients and that this pattern is also observable on a national scale. Kline, in his article, simply twists this assertion to meet his purposes and describes this perfectly sensible reply as a “curious response to an allegation of discrimination” because the Trust is basically admitting it is “no worse than a questionable national average of discrimination.”

In other words, in Kline’s worldview, finding no evidence of racial discrimination is evidence of racial discrimination. Kline doesn’t offer any evidence supporting the idea that national averages for disciplinary action against Black and ethnic minority doctors should be regarded as “questionable.” He doesn’t mention the fact that, although these statistics have been “questioned” again and again and again, no evidence of systemic discrimination has ever been found. Instead, the sole, solitary explanation for racial disproportionality in competence, misconduct, and employment, is always and everywhere “racism.” And, based on this belief, Kline concludes his ideology-infused study with a call to arms (p.66) against White leadership in the NHS (‘snowy white peaks’ being a metaphor for the white hair of older White men in management positions): “It is surely time to urgently and decisively address the widespread and deep-rooted, systemic and largely unchanging discrimination that black and minority ethnic staff within the NHS face … There can be no better time to change, once and for all, the ‘snowy white peaks’ of the NHS.”

This is a clear case of Jewish intellectual activism utilizing ethnic minorities and concepts of racism and discrimination in order to subvert and ultimately topple White influence in one of the major public institutions in a White nation.

What will result from the activities of those like Silber, Goldmsith, and Kline? Statistics indicate that many more patients will be placed in danger. Many will be sexually assaulted, some will die. A culture of silence will take hold, as already witnessed in the case of Peter Duffy. Duffy was a surgeon, consultant urologist, and one-time “Doctor of the Year” at England’s Royal Lancaster Infirmary until, in 2005, this exceptional physician made the mistake of stating that “a doctor of Indian descent had missed an operation on a patient with suspected gangrene because he was out playing golf. He also said two other colleagues of Asian heritage were involved in possible overtime fraud.” Rather than leading to an investigation of these issues of malpractice, Duffy reports:

after flagging these concerns, he was subjected to “malicious, toxic and utterly false” allegations over the period of a decade, culminating in accusations made to the police that he was racist. In particular, tribunal documents showed that four anonymous letters were sent to the General Medical Council(GMC), Duffy’s professional regulator, between 2012 and 2014. Employment Judge Slater said that, from the contents of the letters, they appeared to written by someone within Duffy’s department and “alleged matters which, if true, may have called into question [his] fitness to practice.” [Emphasis added]

Under scrutiny and suspected of having “racist” tendencies, in 2015 Duffy transferred to another hospital. It was at this hospital that Duffy was voted Doctor of the Year by patients and colleagues. A lingering cloud of suspicion appears to have lingered over him, however, and he resigned in July 2016 after he claiming he was still unable to shake off insinuations relating to his issues with the three foreign doctors.

This is the kind of working culture promoted by Kline and his colleagues — a system of denunciation in which complaints against ethnic minority doctors and wider issues of disproportionality are reduced by the only means they can be reduced — by inducing fear of allegations of “racism” in all White staff.