(Ex-doctor) Phillip Thomas

[Otter]

(Ex-doctor) Phillip Thomas

Crackberry; is that something which exits your posterior orifice perchance?

[Lo0p]

(Ex-doctor) Phillip Thomas

Are you trying to get this thread closed Otter?

[Otter]

(Ex-doctor) Phillip Thomas

That honestly never occurred to me.

Hmmm...

By the way, you can get in touch with Phill at alcoholism-northwest.co.uk where you can also purchase his book.

[Otter]

(Ex-doctor) Phillip Thomas

cherrabah;1132907 wrote: Any thoughts on buying this book ... ? "The B4a Baclofen Handbook" By Phillip Thomas - thanks Cher X

Yes, it is an excellent buy. You can get it on this link to Phill's other site baclofen4alcoholism.com

[Bill.P.]

(Ex-doctor) Phillip Thomas

Hey Tip and Otter, you guys are both awesome guys. Skip to my lou darlings and use PM to hash it out. Tip is one of my mates from the begining, but you are definitely on to something as far as the treatment of people like Dr. Ameisen who showed up here after I initially told him about this place, he had no idea. Anyways, water under the bridge, this is more like TMZ or Perezhilton.com more of Gossip blog than a science blog. You ever read the stupid comments on a newsstory at TheTelegraph.uk or name your paper.
You either have a thickskin or dont get in the news, unless you are (spectacular).
It sucks, but people dont want to chage and they will rather attack and disparage rather than just take some liquid baclofen and feel like not drinking.

As far as Dr. Phil
I do not know the status of his medical license, being revoked for being an alcoholic would not diminish his training and experience. That's like if Dr. OZ had a bender who is also a surgeon and removing his license would make him any less knowledgeable.

I stand by my statement that he was intentional, disregarding of the money and wanting to do good. I mean this guy was what, a plastic surgeon, he could slice off a mole and make 2500$ every 30 minutes.
It's not hard in terms of running a medical practice to see how easily that get's eaten up. With RENT, STAFF being paid, secretaries don't work for free. I charged 1000-1800$ an hour of my time. With cost of equipment, fees MALPRACTICE insurance for cardiovascular laboratory. I made about 100$ of that per hour.

That's why I advocate do it yourself with www.virtuouslabs.com
You can get the liquid baclofen, cut out the overhead
You have to acknowledge a waiver that you wont use it for human consumption. But it's exactly the same stuff you get from a pharmacy for a compounded liquid formula.

Skip the doctors, learn how to do it yourself. Get it shipped to you at way less the cost. It's not the only place in town that sells liquid baclofen but that's the only I know has a good reputation for honesty and thoroughly and accurately dosing the liquid baclofen.

So you can pay the overhead of Dr. Phil, which whom is not evil, he just pays it to his staff and government and lives most likely like a pauper. You have NO idea the expense involved with a simple lawsuit and malpractice insurance. Thats why using baclofen "not for human consumption" even though it's the same stuff. You dont pay the lawyer's tax, the malpractice tax, the secreatory scheduling tax etc...

If he was still practicing plastic surgery, he could put in a couple of boob implants for 5000$ every 2 hours. 3 months of treatment will barely pay his office practice bills

[Greg]

(Ex-doctor) Phillip Thomas

G'day Bill, I just want to say I hope you are doing well these days.

As for Dr Phill, I don't know enough to comment on him, although he seems to be strongly disliked by some people here.

[Cinders]

(Ex-doctor) Phillip Thomas

You have to acknowledge a waiver that you wont use it for human consumption.

So, if someone buys this, who do they say for which the consumption is? Their dogs or cats?

Sorry, this just struck me as funny.

Cindi

[Cinders]

(Ex-doctor) Phillip Thomas

and like Greg, I have no opinion on Dr. Phill one way or the other.

Cindi

[Bill.P.]

(Ex-doctor) Phillip Thomas

Cinders;1198556 wrote: So, if someone buys this, who do they say for which the consumption is? Their dogs or cats?

Sorry, this just struck me as funny.

Cindi

Basicaly, yes

You acknowledge you will NOT use it for human consumption

Bingo, you take responsibility for the act.

If you let the doctor prescribe it, he takes the responsibility on and any lawsuits, firivolous or not, and any malpractice claims etc...

It's a waste of money, I mean it does NOT change the molecular structure of baclofen or strength.

It just merely allows you to get it, legally without a prescription under the terms that you wont use it for human consumption. Well people drink all sorts of things like hairspray in alaska to get drunk.

Its not labelled for human consumption.
It's a personal choice to accept full responsibility for taking baclofen CHEAPLY or do you need hand-holding and want the option to sue in the future.

It's just a choice of options like a buying a car, you get the maintenance program etc..

[Bill.P.]

(Ex-doctor) Phillip Thomas

Greg;1198554 wrote: G'day Bill, I just want to say I hope you are doing well these days.

As for Dr Phill, I don't know enough to comment on him, although he seems to be strongly disliked by some people here.

How you doing mate?

Can you host me in December for a day or two on the couch?
I want to hang out Baulkham hills in Decemeber, maybe head your way. If not, no worries

As far as Dr. Phil, I think it was a couple of years ago when I spoke with him and I aggressively encouraged him to help people

As far as his fees are concerned. They are cheap in comparison to inpatient treatment and inline with outpatient therapy as well. In short there is no difference if you got a drink-drive charge and his therapy for 3 months.
in fact it is most likely cheaper and offer better results for those who care to stop drinking.

Again I am partial to the self-medicating model with virtuouslabs.com
But I did highly encourage him to use his life to make a difference and, he was very receptive to that. I doubt he is acting in a moneygrubbing manner, he could easily move outside of his medical license and perform plastic surgery and make a hell of a lot more money
I dont want to sound like his bitch either. it's beena couple of years since we talked and had a meeting of the minds on how to solve the discrepancy of alcohol use and the information on baclofen.
We are both approaching it from separate fronts along with Dr. Ameisen and we'll all meet in the middle.
Actually, I will be there first with my research results coming shortly

[Ne/Neva Eva]

I've read all 10 pages and can't find any more pertinent information, but thought I should bump it anyway. I know that the information regarding his license being revoked is posted somewhere on this forum. I just don't know how to use the damn search filter. Will keep trying, though.



(Also, this thread made me really sad. So many people gone and/or still struggling. This disease sucks. And Bill P. OMG. What a complete nutcase he turned out to be. I love that he's pushing his own website for liquid bac on a thread about a person pushing their stuff for money.)

[Ne/Neva Eva]

Actually, I found the thread with information about his medical license being revoked. Of course, it was Terryk who put the information, along with links to other threads about the man. Thanks, TK!

https://www.mywayout.org/community/medication-research-and-support/48958-phill-thomas-bac-post1112800.html#post1112800

[Ne/Neva Eva]

Mr Smith:*Having found Mr Thomas’ fitness to practice impaired by reason of his conviction and misconduct the Panel has considered*what sanction, if any, it should impose on his registration.

The Panel has heard the submissions made by you on behalf of the General Medical Council (GMC) regarding the appropriate sanction, if any, to be imposed on Mr*Thomas’ registration. You submitted that whilst suspension may be an appropriate sanction, the Panel should also consider erasure. You also submitted that the decision as to the appropriate sanction, if any, is a matter for this Panel exercising its own independent judgment.


...the Panel is satisfied that the doctor has insight and does not pose a significant risk of repeating behaviour, and that there is no evidence of the offending behaviour since the incident. *



The Panel notes the email Mr*Thomas sent to the GMC dated 10*October 2006, which the Panel determines demonstrates his apparent lack of insight into the seriousness of his misconduct. It has determined that, as he has*removed himself from any discourse with the GMC, displaying blatant disregard for and lack of cooperation with the policies and procedures of the GMC, imposing conditions on his registration*would be neither practical nor workable as there would be no way of monitoring his compliance. The Panel has concluded that there is no evidence of any potential for the doctor to respond positively to any condition that the Panel might impose.*Accordingly, it has determined that to impose conditions in this case would be entirely inappropriate.

... He has been given numerous opportunities to cooperate with the GMC and has failed to do so. The Panel cannot be satisfied that this behaviour will not be repeated if the period of suspension is extended. It considers that the evidence adduced suggests that it is highly likely that this misconduct will continue if a period of suspension is directed.

The Panel has considered when erasure may be the appropriate sanction by reference to the*Indicative Sanctions Guidance (April 2005), which indicates that it may be appropriate where the behaviour is fundamentally incompatible with being a doctor, and where this behaviour involves a serious departure from the relevant professional standards as set out in Good Medical Practice, and where there is a persistent lack of insight into the seriousness of actions or consequences.

The Panel has already determined that Mr Thomas’ behaviour towards Mrs I and the GMC constitutes*a serious departure from Good Medical Practice. It considers Mr*Thomas’ total*disengagement from his regulatory body to be fundamentally incompatible with his continuing to be a registered doctor.

...

“The appellant’s behaviour had demonstrated a blatant disregard for the system of registration which is designed to safeguard the interests of patients and to maintain high standards within the profession.”

Other than the very limited facts of his dealings with Mrs I, the Panel has heard no evidence to indicate whether or not Mr Thomas is a competent and useful practitioner. In considering Mr Thomas’ continued disengagement from the GMC, his misconduct in relation to Mrs I and his conviction, the Panel has determined that erasure of this practitioner’s name from the Medical Register is appropriate and proportionate and in the best interests of patients and the public.

The Panel therefore directs that Mr Thomas’ name be erased from the Medical Register.

[Baclofenman]

This paperwork is dated 12th October 2007 - <s>Mr</s> Dr Thomas could not be bothered to turn up to the hearing - Still having made this poor womans face look like she had done 12 rounds with Iron Mike, I am not surprised
Then again with the drink driving charge having recently been proved, I guess even he knew this chapter of his game was up

Regards


Bacman

[Otter]

I'm not sure why this topic has been resurrected.



As far as I am aware, these are the facts relating to Phill Thomas.



He practiced in Gastroenterology for many years but was unable to progress due to a problem with his eyesight which prevented him from becoming a surgeon, or something like that, so he sent back to university and took a law degree. After working for a major law firm in the UK he went into botox, getting involved with a "franchised" operation.



I suspect that he got sucked in over his head by this and it wasn't viable. I can only guess that it all fell apart and he hit the bottle. What happens next is that he failed to do a follow up photograph of a woman he had treated so she reported him to the GMC. He failed to respond and they then got wind of his alcohol problem so they suspended him and tried to get in touch. He failed to communicate, being in the depths of alcoholism so they eventually took him off their register.



I've not seen any evidence that he was accused of malpractice or did a bad job on this particular patient mentioned. I have read the GMC reports and it only relates to failing to provide photos as provided in the contract with this patient.



Doctors in the UK do not have an MD degree, they only have a Bachelor of Science degree so they call themselves "doctors" only out of custom. Registration with the GMC is not required in order to be a "doctor" in the UK. However, if someone conducts themselves as a "doctor" and doesn't register, they can be asked to stop, and can be disciplined.



So, the offshoot is that PT is perfectly ok in calling himself a doctor. He can also be an alcoholism counsellor.



What this is, is a "grey area" because it could be said that he is on the borderline of giving medical advice rather than just counselling, but any of his patients will have taken the option of getting a GP prescription or going private.



In the UK, doctors work out of surgeries, but Phill gives advice in person from his local pub. There is no room for confusion that he is not operating as a "Doctor" under the NHS. No NHS "Doctor" has a web site advertising their services so, again, there is no confusion about his status in the UK.



I do accept that the strict US requirements that one not call oneself a doctor without having an MD and being a paid up member in good standing of the profession, that doesn't apply to the UK, or to "witch doctors" in Zambia. You just have to get your head around the fact that the UK has lots of people going around, even on TV, who have called themselves doctors, when they aren't and that where he operates, it's ok to do what he is doing.



I don't like to get involved in this subject, again, because I find it disturbing. Phill helped me and my wife immeasureable when we had no one on our side.



The real "doctors" ran for the hills, played mind games, screwed us around and generally were a bunch of arseholes. Dr. Chick helped us but he is expensive and so did Dr. H, but even he was messed around by doctors in his own hospital.



I have no sympathy at all for the medical profession I came up against in the UK. As far as I am concerned, barring a few good souls, they were the biggest bunch of frauds imaginable and some of them should have been struck off the medical register over the negligent treatment and hypocrisy we were exposed to.



What this preoccupation with PT highlights is the vast difference in qualifications and knowledge of doctors in the UK and US. I would have no problem defending the US medical profession because they are well trained and well educated. The UK, however, allows people to go straight from High School to medical school and by second year medicine they are out in hospitals. Only about 15% of UK students get into "High School", most drop out at age 16 with or without what is called a General Certificate in Education.



Professions and higher education in the UK are elitist and class ridden. People go into professions as a function of class background and not because they are particularly interested in providing health care to their fellow "citizens".



It's a joke and by posting the way you have about PT, you are just playing along with a sad misconception that there is something of value in being a proper "doctor" in the UK when, in terms of alcohol treatment, they are all as one, a bunch of hopeless, useless, incompetent, arrogant pricks. Which PT is not.