WellBN Brighton GP practice do not believe in evidence based medicine. TT at employment tribunal tomorrow

[impossibletoday]

In case anyone is interested

https://x.com/LoudBonnet/status/2107877530602443058

well that's just, like, your opinion, maaaan

How high are these people?

EBM - David Sackett is the academic most widely recognised as “the father of Evidence‑Based Medicine (EBM)”.

Why Sackett holds this title
He founded the first clinical epidemiology department in Canada at McMaster University (1967), establishing the methodological foundations that later became EBM.

He was a pioneer of clinical epidemiology, alongside Archie Cochrane and Alvan Feinstein, but Sackett is the one most consistently credited with founding EBM as a formal movement.

He led the creation of the Oxford Centre for Evidence‑Based Medicine, further institutionalising EBM globally.

His textbooks Clinical Epidemiology and Evidence‑Based Medicine became foundational teaching materials.

Well if the ET finds WellBN are right looks like I'll be redundant soon. This is my job gone 😂

PMK - is anyone observing this?

Where's the gobsmacked button when you want it??

All true.

However, he has recently said, in response to a review which determined the evidence base for gender affirming care isn't there, that being " evidence based" isn't everything.

What these people are trying to push towards in care based on the principle that adults should be able to choose their own course of treatment, and doctors have an obligation to help them.

Now I suspect the good doctor mainly wants to keep his grant money flowing. But I do think this represents an overall challenging to both the idea of evidence based care as the way to decide what is appropriate, and to do not harm as the first principle doctors need to adhere to.

It's not only around gender affirmation either. It massively impacts things like assisted death, cosmetic procedure, and many other issues. And would I am sure have massive impacts on things like doctors being responsible for bad care decisions.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

It seems no one is atm. They are doing the usual Hokey Cokey that happens at the start of every tribunal.

I am shocked by it but definitely not laughing. I guess that evidence-based medicine hasn't been tested in court before as a "protected belief"? So Sussex NHS are hoping to rule that bit out?

The Tribunal Tweets summary doesn't say anything about WORIADS, just "The respondent defends the latter claim by pleading that evidence-based medicine is just an opinion, not cogent or coherent and not relevant to a weighty or substantial aspect of human life and behaviour" Actually I was wondering if this a direct quote from the respondent?

https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/redvers-v-nhs-sussex-integrated-care

(Direct link for those of us not on Twitter)

And I wonder... this case could have some interesting implications for the proposed "conversion therapy" ban?

What kind of idiot would go to a tribunal and make an argument like this

The entire foundation of my professional qualifications and right to practise, and the scientific body of knowledge under which my prescriptions are judged to be medical treatments, rather than attempted ABH by poisoning, is "just like your opinion maaaan, I mean your honour"

Can we use this approach in any discipline?

.... evidence-based medicine engineering is just an opinion, not cogent or coherent ...

Not looking forwards to (for example) driving cars designed using this approach

I plan to catch up with the TT unrolls

I applied to observe remotely but have had no response as yet apart from an auto acknowledgment.

Can't check right now but I think those words, with "cogent and coherent" and "weighty and substantial" are directly quoted from the Grainger criteria which go to determine whether a belief system is WORIADS - so I don't think there's any doubt that's what's at stake.

(I am away and minimally online today, so neither watching nor up for c&p for this one, I'm afraid.)

According to Google and Wikipedia, WORIADS is one of the five Grainger criteria for a protected belief. They don't seem to be challenging that one.

From Wikipedia:

1. The belief must be genuinely held.
2. It must be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available.
3. It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour.
4. It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.
5. It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

Looks as if they're going for 2, 3 and 4.

Peter Daly the claimant's solicitor got ethical veganism recognised as a protected belief. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50981359

(edited for clarity)

I'll C&P the morning so far for those not on X but have to go out soonish.

TT

Public hearings in Redvers v NHS Sussex Integrated Care Board & Mr Adam Doyle are expected to begin this morning from 10 am. It is a hybrid hearing (both in person and on line) with access granted to the electronic bundle.

Dr Redvers (claimant/C) named GP safeguarding lead is bringing a constructive dismissal case against NHS Sussex Integrated Care Board (respondent). Concerns were raised about the practice of a specific doctor at WellBN, a Brighton GP practice.

C claims that as a result of escalating those claims from 2020 onwards, she was constructively dismissed. She claims discrimination on the grounds of her employer’s perception of her gender critical beliefs and on the grounds of her protected belief in evidence-based medicine.

NHS Sussex subsequently launched an investigation. The findings identified serious failings in WellBN’s assessment, consent, safeguarding, prescribing and monitoring processes, with potential harm reported in cases reviewed.

https://www.surreysussex.icb.nhs.uk/ipsi-wellbn-general-practice-brighton/

Ah so she is claiming GC belief discrimination as well.

TT

Abbreviations
C/DR - claimant Dr S Redvers
PD - Peter Daly, solicitor for C, Doyle Clayton
CE - Charlotte Elves, barrister for C
R1 - NHSSICB/R1 - NHS Sussex Integrated Care Board, first respondent
AD/R2 - Adam Doyle, second respondent
Rs - collectively the respondents

EJ - Employment Judge
P1, P2 - Panel members
GC - gender critical or sex realist beliefs; that sex is a matter of biology
GI - gender identity belief; that everyone has an inner “gender”, which may be the same as or different to their sex at birth

EBM - evidence-based medicine; conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients SG - safeguarding
WB - WellBN, Brighton based GP practice

8 October 2026, 1st day of public hearings; there can be issues with use of the video conference technology. Additionally, on-line access to the evidence bundle has been agreed. Experience suggests that may not go smoothly (ref to Bailey vs Garden Court Chambers & Stonewall).

A reminder: We report what we hear in good faith but do not provide a transcript of proceedings.

We are a collective of volunteer journalists and are not paid for our work. Please support us by subscribing to our Substack (link in bio above) which funds our legal and digital expenses and some travel costs.

Witnesses in employment tribunals in England and Wales prepare written statements; can be made available only after witness is sworn. Usually a few introductory questions etc from the barrister, followed by cross examination on the witness statement by opposing counsel.

We will return when the public hearing begins. Expected to be at 10 am.

TT

We have learned that the judge will be Judge Katherine Andrews and she will be sitting alone.

We are 'waiting for the conference host to join' (WFTCHTJ) as of 10:10 am and no in person spectators have been admitted to the hearing room.

We have picture, but sound difficulties (echoes, etc) so far.

Everyone disconnected.

WFTCHTJ

Video conference has re-opened but no proceedings yet. 10:37 am.

No pictures.

We now have a view of the room but no sound. We can also see the witness chair. No one in it.

Seems like we have sound now

Judge has entered.

TT

J - makes a comment about online bundles. Invites Dr Redvers to the witness stand, affirms, please sit down.
CB - claimants barrister (don't have name, will find). Takes C to witness statement, go to page 121,
C yes
J - invites C to sign her version of witness statement

J - we will do the correction afterward
CB - before today you have provided a number of typos in the WS (witness statement), not sure you have a copy,
J - is this the doc provided to the tribunal, I have worked through and made corrections, if no objections, if C is author, we

can use.
CB - is this your statement, true and correct,
C yes
J how this works, you will be asked questions by RB and that will be most of today,
C - yes
J - given it is nearly 11 am, I propose we go straight through to lunch around 1 pm, then continue from 2 pm

RB - I'm going to tell you format of my cross examination. I will try and deal with things chronologically where possible. What has been set up in front of you, is a laptop with the trial bundle, you can have 2 open, in case we need to go back and forward.

Today we'll try and establish what is agreed and then the complaints you made about Dr Hall. Those are the first two chapters, I will explain the others later. Do you have a copy of the bundle?
C - yes
RB start by putting statements to you agree or disagree
RB is Ben Williams for Rs.

BW everyone should be treated with respect yes
C - agree
BW trans people should be listened too
C - agree
BW when R1 affirmed commitment to trans and nonbinary colleagues you were not surprised and it was appropriate
C - I was not surprised

BW and its an inclusive policy, do you agree
C everyone should be included
BW interrogating your belief in EBM, that's a belief that you've always held, in your WS, is it something that you've always rec'd as a philosophical belief or is that new

C its' the basis of how I work and how I act
BW categorised as a philosophical belief, is that something new
CB interrupts
J I understood the q to be have you always understood these to be a philosophical belief or just a belief you hold
C just a belief I hold

BW - brought to your attention as protected belief only recent
C in these proceedings
BW there are two Rs, you heard discussion this am on vicarious liability did you understand
C not a lawyer
BW but you understand that R1 is responsible for agent, Adam Doyle

C yes
BW you added R2 to your case later, so that he would be required to give evidence
C yes
BW so you say that he should have always known that you have EBM belief, how should he have known that
C I'm employed as a doctor, it must be based on science and evidence

TT

BW not jump to conclusions, not based on assumptions, actions based on evidence
C yes
BW so you're saying that R2 should have know that is a form of philosophical belief
C I think so
BW does it remain your case, save for concession by advocate this am,

that R2 is personally culpable for all those acts.
C yes
BW even where you read that R2 had no part to play in events in 2023, i/x of your g/x he remains culpable
C yes
BW you consider that a reasonable assumption
C yes that is my position

BW para 27 of WS, page 89, you seem to hedge your bets a bit,
C yes, I've got it
BW you describe the punishment meted out, because the Rs have adopted a belief set, perhaps unconsciously, that is in opposition to EBM. You used the word punishment and you say it was deliberate

C yes
BW you say conscious or not, but deliberate is that correct
C yes
BW let's look at an overall picture at this stage, jump to end of chronology, in July 2024, we will discuss tomorrow, after the appeal was heard you resigned. Go to an email you sent just after go to 3761

C yes
BW email from you to Mr Smith and others, at the bottom of the page
C 3762,
BW we're going to be a page out, but we've got the same document. Email from you to Mr Smith, you set out the background all the way to 2020 about protected disclosures

BW you plainly saw yourself as a whistle blower, referring to complaints made in 2020 about GP in Brighton, you refer to protected disclosure - see that
C wait,
BW you described what happened in 2020, how GP was practicing, you don't mention in email discrimination on basis of

protected belief, and did you understand what protected acts are
C yes, from a previous i/x
BW has a different legal meaning so I don't need to discuss any further. Moving on to claim form, when do you say that you formed a belief that you were discriminated against

C quite early on, targeted in 2020, first i/x
BW so quite early on discrim on basis of belief or perception of belief you hold
C yes
BW email from you, raising a complaint and an SAR,
C yes
BW in this email, you set out why you want this info, set out that R1 have allowed

indivs to target you, and allowed employees to harass you and targeted you on the basis of perceived GC beliefs
C what was q again
BW you said that you were targeted on the basis of GC belief, perception of that but you do not hold that belief
C I do hold GC belief

Oh sorry, I got the structure backwards. Should have known you'd know :-)

Hadn't realised it was Charlotte leading. Is this the first gc case where she's been the leader not the second (terminology may be wrong, ykwim).

TT

BW but you don't refer to EBM in this email
C I was referring to the transcript in which I was accused of transphobia for manifestation of my GC belief
[some bundle faffing, Judge suggests extracting docs from hard copy bundle - BW arranging]
BW let's look at the list of issues

BW in list of issues
C what page
BW very first page
J page in your left hand
BW says does the C hold that belief, and then says did Rs hold GI belief, and did C hold and manifest GC belief
C yes
BW you say perceived that you held that belief,

and they knew it and discrim against you because of it
C yes, I told them
BW when did you tell them
C just before 2nd i/x emailed
BW so you're saying that they should have known it
J just confirming what witness said, they may well have known earlier - is this a good time to

find that email.
BW will come to that later, now page 228, EBM belief was not mentioned, not referenced in this meeting, very few refs to a philosophical belief as a protected characteristics, for example, statement that supplemented g/x, protected characteristics

and mentions GC belief or presumption thereof. Why presumption? You think they alway knew, why did you put that.
C I told Mark Power about that in 2021, I was more specific about this in 2023, and it was clear that someone was targeting me because of GC belief

BW what is added by 'presumption of GC belief'
C I had no idea who was in the meeting
BW now to page 3794, letter from Doyle Clayton,
[J reading]
J do you want me to read the whole thing, I recognise the form of letter
BW not necessary

BW you set out what you want to settle, but things you asked for are not within the gift of the Rs, why did you ask for this full audit
C because they could look at any GP practice with which they have a contract BW regulator best placed to do
C not necessarily

C ICB best placed to do,
BW you set out the large piece of work
C not necessarily that large, depends on how many children in practice
BW you asked for an independent review of WellBN, that was done
C yes

CB - C is giving evidence, not you, let her respond, which by the way she did BW takes C to another document
C - need to read, they didn't issue public statement
BW you've objected to privacy in comms
C I don't think that patient safety concern should ever be subject to

gagging clause.
BW you were very angry and upset about the meeting
C yes I was called a transphobe, which I'm not, it was very upsetting
BW back further you had known Dr Sam Hall before
C yes in a social way
BW you were in the same choir, anything beyond that

C no, I don't think so
BW any other interaction
C I had never worked with him and knew him from choir
BW now to an ix that held that the concerns you raised were well found, what it doesn't say is that, you were not enamoured of the prospect of DSH, coming to give a talk

BW you already had concerns
C summer of 2020? I don't think so, this note about 2021
BW but Dr Richards said you had concerns earlier, you say you had no concerns earlier about SH earlier,
C I was aware that he was a vociferous campaigner and a newly qualified GP, the Clare Project

Thank you for copying and pasting, ImNotAsCooperativeAsYouMightWantAWomanToBe

TT

The Clare Project BW so that was a concern to you that he was campaigning
C it can be a concern
BW it could be, seems it was. One of your concerns was that SH did not have correct level of training
C yes, I knew that he did not

BW did you have any direct knowledge of SH's working practices in summer 2020
C yes, Dr R told me about it
BW so only what Dr R told you,
C she gave me a very detailed account
BW you then came to understand that he was prescribing for all his patients,
C he took over

prescribing for that particular patient
BW so you assumed that SH was prescribing for all 180 patients,
C where does it say that
BW not in this document, one of the things you were told by DR was that SH was treating 180 patients
C I need to look at the detail