Hello and welcome to another UK column interview.
And for those that you that don't know me, my name is Debbie
Evans and I'm a retired state registered nurse.
I used to be a ward sister and I was a government advisor at the
Department of Health. So a little bit of political
knowledge there. And you know, I am so fortunate.
In fact, I'm going to, I'm going to say that this interview is
really going to be Debbie's ward round because I feel like Matron
and I have been so honoured for the last few occasions because
I've been joined by the most amazing doctors.
I've been joined by Doctor Sabine Hassan, Doctor Robin
Everett, Doctor Robin Kelly, Doctor Robert Everett, Doctor
Robin Kelly, and today's going to be no different because I do
actually feel actually, while I'm on that, where are you
nurses? Because I'm getting to speak to
a lot of doctors. So if you're out there, nurses,
especially my colleagues, do get in touch because it was always
the mate that ran the hospital and the consultants, well, the
consultants listened to Matron, right?
And today, I think no, no more than any other time, many of us
are feeling politically homeless and many of us are feeling
homeless when it comes to the fact of doctors and nurses.
And who can you trust and do you wish?
Are you sitting there wishing that the person in charge of our
health system was an honest, professional, learned,
experienced medical doctor? Because at the moment we've got
W Streeting, who, as far as I'm aware, doesn't have any medical
professional qualifications. And do you wish, and I think you
probably do, that you could meet a kind, honest, passionate Dr.
in search of the truth? Because we've already met so
many, right? But today I am going to I'm
going to give you all of your wishes in one because I'm going
to introduce you to Doctor Tech Kong and he's going to get quite
an introduction because he is a man with many hats and extremely
experienced. So now I'm going to introduce
you to Doctor Tech Kong. And I mean, this is everything
you could ever wish for or wrapped up in one person,
really. So let me tell you that Doctor
Tech Kong is a doctor. He's a retired General
practitioner. He's also a master of law, he is
a police surgeon. We'll come into all of this.
He's been involved in clinical commissioning groups,
safeguarding Cams, children, mental health, safeguarding
services. So he has a wealth of medical
experience, but not just that, he's always been very interested
in politics, which we'll talk about again in a minute.
But he stood for the general elections in 2000 and five, 2017
as an independent Brexit candidate in 2019.
And now he heads the Alliance for Democracy and Freedom, which
is the only political party to be headed by a doctor.
And you know, it's just amazing, isn't it, when you've got a
doctor that's interested in politician, interested in
politics and also has got some answers into how our health
service should be run. So I am over the moon.
Welcome doctor. Tech Kong to UK column.
It's lovely to see you. Please Tech, give us a little
bit of an introduction and say hello to our audience.
Thank you very much Debbie for inviting me on to UK column.
In answer to your question, I I retired as AGP after about 38 to
40 years of service and I say that roughly because I hit a bad
patch of health and I took a retirement.
But I then went into locum service for a short time.
So here I am. I became AGP back in 1982 and I
was AGP in Esmansall, Leicester, which is one of the 10 poorest
wards in the country. A Midway in my career I learned
about how the poorer people lived, their fears, their
anxieties, their hopes. And he led me to understand that
health is a very important part of our lives.
In fact, without health there is nothing.
And I often wondered, you know, when a patient came in on
waiting lists for hernia repair. Manual worker.
And for every month that he's been off work, not only does his
personal finance suffer, the national economy takes a hit,
the company takes a hit, the country takes a hit, his family
takes a hit. So towards the end of the 90s
when the Conservative Party lost its government, lost its power
to the Labour Party, I was rather hopeful that things would
become better for the working people.
And I said it's not worth particular bias for the working
people to the prejudice of the well off and the the better
healed people. But it's just that if you look
at life and life opportunities, we always have to look at the
lowest common denominator because the poorer ones who
build a country contribute to the wealth of of our nation.
And we really have to look after them.
As I was mentioned earlier in my introduction, or maybe I
haven't, a lot of what I'm going to say today has at the back of
it something which I very much respect and pay reference to.
And it's called the Gaussian curve.
So if you look at the heights of people, it goes like a bell
shape. So at one extreme we have very
tall people, the other extreme we have very short people, and
then the majority of average height reside under the bell of
the curve. So when I looked at how people
were receiving health, the poorer people were at the lower
end of the bell curve and not only were they less able to
access health, they needed a lot of advocacy and support from
those who are delivering the health.
And I felt very privileged because here I was expecting the
new government to deliver to the world.
We're facing all sorts of difficulties in terms of
accessing timely care and quality care.
So Fast forward into 2000, at a time when Alan Milburn was
starting to introduce the Concorde, where the required
health service was met by outsourcing to the private
sector. I thought that would have
improved the situation. And there was a boom in the PF
is new hospitals have built, fractured health and social care
centres came to be. But the trouble is, in concert
with investment, there wasn't the matching flow of talent into
the new spaces. So we, we had a difficult
situation where the illusion is one of expansion and but the
efficiency started dropping. So I in the MAMPO they were
giving me early 20 in the early 2000s asking if they could
convert the NHS referral to a private referral.
And I used to, I remember I used to say to some of these people
who would say things like, you know, it's, it's quite an
expensive undertaking to go privately.
But they were briefly come around to saying that, look,
don't worry about that. We'll go around to our brothers
and sisters. We'll, we'll try and buy this
hip operation for our, our mum or grandmother or whatever it
is. So that got me thinking.
And I think it was year 2002. Because of my outspoken defence
of how health should be delivered, I was Co opted into
the BMA, a working party on medical chambers.
So I wrote a paper on how integrated care should look, how
seamless cash should look. And that paper was taken by a
consultant colleague and presented at Adam Smith's
Institute later that year. One of my patients who happened
to be the leader of the Conservative group at
Leicestershire County Council, suggested if I was so passionate
about patient care, I should entered politics.
And I told this lady, the lady Anapoleon, that, you know, I
entered medicine to help people, not to dabble in politics.
And she said, well, young man, you just go and think about it
and come back to me if you if and when you're ready.
So I plodded on for a while and then realized I was getting
nowhere fast. I mean, I was the president of
the BMA for Leicestershire and Rutland.
And no matter how much I shouted and kicked, nothing changed
because the legislature made those rules up passed it down
the line and we have top down decision making and we at the
working Co phase were very important.
So one fine day when Annapolan turned up again, she said well
what have you thought about politics?
And I said, well I think you could be right.
Whereupon Anna started introducing me to various senior
members of the Conservative Party.
I was introduced to Oliver Hill, Sir Oliver Hill, then the chair
of the Select Committee on Health, and I presented my
ideas. Just to keep things equal and
fair, I sent a copy of my proposals to Tony Blair, which
obviously had a very perfunctory reply.
But the the message that I had for the party was passed to
William Hague and eventually reached Andrew Lansley, who was
then, I think 13 weeks into his shadow chancellorship of any
health. So what happened from that point
on? I was encouraged to become more
and more active. I was encouraged to join the
concert. I wasn't quite ready for
politics, not even sure where the Conservative Party was was
the thing I should be doing. But I sent the PAB exam.
I was then given a known to the parliamentary candidate and I
set up the policy forum for health for Andrew Lansley in
2003. I fought the first general
election in 2005 on a very committed health ticket really.
So my my situation is this. I think we need to understand
that a lot of politicians without frontline experience and
health cannot deliver the health service that the public needs.
And I say that very humbly because, you know, with all the
experience I have and all the insight I have been fortunate to
receive with my long service, we need to take care of people
before we can take care of our country.
We've got to ensure that they have good health to contribute
to the nation's success and economic viability and so on.
Well, it's heck, honestly, there's so many, there's so many
questions I've got because you've got expertise in in a
very diverse area. But I want to talk to you about
your party. I mean, I've seen you
campaigning, I've seen the passion when you're talking to
people in the streets. And you know, this is where we
say to our audience, you know, get out there and talk to people
and, and, and have your voice heard while you can, which is
exactly what tech has been doing to the point that you lead your
own party. And, and we're talking about the
Alliance for Democracy and Freedom.
And you know, it really is when you, when you look at the
mission message, and I'll just give our, our viewers a little
hint of what you stand for, which is common sense policies,
which I absolutely love because I think we're devoid of common
sense, which is why I've thoroughly enjoyed speaking to
all of you consultants, because we remember common sense, right?
We trained in common sense and we were still able to critically
think. Your party also stands for
freedom of speech. I think all of our viewers will
agree with that and want that freedom of association and
assembly. No more lock UPS.
Well, you do say lock downs, but no, I say lock UPS.
No more lock UPS. We're going to defend our own
border. We're not going to be involved
in any kind of foreign military activity not related directly to
our borders. So basically we're going to mind
our own business and we're going to not stick our noses in where
they're not wanted. We're going to be
self-sufficient. Oh my goodness, wouldn't that be
lovely? Because we're so unsustainable
at the moment. But we're going to be
self-sufficient in energy, in food, in manufacturing.
Lovely to see that word coming back.
Manufacturing, good old fashioned manufacturing, you're
going to be free to transact in whatever form of money or
currency you choose. Fantastic.
And any associate of the World Economic Forum should be banned.
And those are just some of the things that you you say and it's
music to my ears. But tell me a bit about the ADF
because it was founded, wasn't it back in I think it was 2019.
Am I right there? Tech.
Yes, indeed. Well, 2020, August 19th, he was
registered with the Electric Commission in in August 2020.
So it came at a bad time. It was a time when we could not
assemble. If you remember there were
limitations on numbers when and where we can assemble.
Yes the the unique thing about the party is it was set up by 4
veteran politicians. 1 was Mike Hookum formerly MEP initially
for UKIP and then he was independent.
Keith Lonsdale who was ex REF. Then there was Paul Goldring who
was the UKIP regional organizer for the Northwest and Ernie
Warner who was one time interim leader of UKIP.
So what is set out to do was basically to establish a party
based not on polarized politics, just centre sensible as anyone
to put it. So we we defy additional
categorization into left wing or right wing policies.
We do what common sense people do.
We do what is necessary to set the nation on right footing.
And we would not be averse to criticizing any, any association
of our present cohort of politicians with national
organizations that do not act in the interests of either the
country or our people. So we, we operate a party with
no whip. We believe that the whip should
be the people, not a party line, a central party line within the
broad parameters of saying that whatever we do and support is in
the interest of people and of our country.
So I think that that's a very good start.
We also run groups along the lines of regional and
professional autonomy. So we have, we initially set up
proud of groups, proud of British farmers, proud of
British fisheries. Michael Come was initially
looking after that because he's a whole man and his fishing
background, a very ardent speaker and the European Union
on British fisheries. Then I was normally heading
proud of health care workers. So we we have those proud of
groups, vocational groups, but we also have proud of regional
situations. So we have proud of Oldham,
proud of Wakefield from. So what we're trying to do is to
encourage people to come out for those with a fervent desire to
improve where they live and where they work, to come out
and, and exercise the the political voice.
And we interdigitate political aspirations with vocational
experience. So I think we we have a a very
unique formula in terms of having a party with no central
whip, where the whip actually comes from the people and we
draw on the broad experience of political members.
We will then take the party forward.
Now, we're a very young party, although it was set up by
veteran politicians and cognizant of the fact that, you
know, tribal politics is is very much in dominance at the moment.
But we hope that in time to come, with greater publicity, we
will get to a state where we can compete with the legacy parties
in a more realistic way. So I have great hopes for the
future. I love that I I absolutely love
that the fact that the people are the whip and I do think a
lot of people are feeling politically homeless and for
anybody that's thinking where do I get hold of tech?
How do I get hold of the the party?
All of the links will be in the article that will be beneath
this interview. And it just reminded me when you
said, you know, wig the public of the whips.
It's like in, in our tech on a hospital ward, and I've said
this many times before, but the regulator in a hospital was
always the patients, visitors and family.
If there was a problem or if there was something not quite
right, they would come to us. And that's how it works.
So, so I love that. But you know, here we are in
2024, we're in October and we're looming up to the autumn budget.
And in all my years, and I'm a bit of a dinosaur, in all my
years, I don't remember a time where I have ever been so
concerned about the political landscape as it is at the
moment. Labour obviously Sakir Starmer,
Prime Minister, things are not getting better.
You know their old mantra of things can only get better.
They're not getting better, they're getting a lot worse.
And we're looming up to the Autumn Budget on October the
30th. Tech, what are your thoughts
with regards going forward with this Labour government that
we've got or Uni party perhaps, as we've got at the moment?
I think the budget is a is a very vexatious problem,
vexatious matter because if I saw it from the lay perspective,
we are asked to pay more and more taxes and we see less and
less of it in effect coming back to ourselves.
For example, when I was with some of my former patients, they
said doc, you know, I wish you were back here again.
We now have so many problems, we can't get to see the GP and if
we do, we end up seeing a nurse practitioner or whatever it is
and we feel we can't discuss things properly.
Now if we didn't spend all that money on fighting the war in
Ukraine, if we didn't spend £8,000,000 a day on housing
illegal immigrants, if we didn't, you know, spend all that
money on the green agenda, we would have a far better health
service. But you know, we, we, we just
waste taxes and I think it's a temerity of politicians to say
you've got to cover more money for us to pay off all these
things. And these things have no benefit
to our people. Now in terms of getting a good
health service. I'm sorry, coming back to it,
you know, I, I can't understand why we take the best of school
leavers, train them and develop the clinical acumen and then at
the other end they come out and you have to respond to
guidelines and protocols to emasculate intellectual ability.
What's worse is, for example, when I was AGP, when I first
became AGP, the majority of my income, my pay came from
capitation. So the better I was as a doctor,
the better the reputation, the better my income would be bigger
because I have a bigger, less size.
Towards the end it was a mere 10 to 15% of my income.
The vast majority was made-up of targets.
So I would get 50 pence for converting a patient who is
stabilized on an expensive statin, for example, 50 pence to
convert to a cheaper statin. I was offered things like a two
and a half 1000 lbs to identify people's ethnicity and given 100
lbs for putting people on end of life care path.
I'm sure you know all these because you, you've been on
government panel advising nursing care and all that.
So towards the end I was noticing more and more use of
perverse incentives which damage professional ethos.
And this is one of the things my party wants to see change.
And we, we lobby strongly. And if we do get into
Parliament, if any one of us get into Parliament, that is one of
the things we want to change, to change the way doctors are paid,
doctors are trained, doctors are retained and so on.
Now in terms of the budget, going back to the budget, there
isn't any anything we can do unfortunately, because we are on
the outside of the legislature and they can say and do anything
with impunity. So if your listeners are angry
about the situation, they must take a stand.
Stop being politically homeless, come and join us.
Be a voice, be the people to to run and, and, and and and bring
on the future that they desire. To quote Gandhi, be the future
that you wish to see in the world.
So going back to the budgeting, there are so many things that
the present government has let us down very badly.
Not many weeks ago they were talking about depriving the
elderly of the winter fuel allowance.
Then they're talking about looking at how to claw more
money out of pensions and inheritance and all that sort of
thing. We we really need a government,
we really need a political party on the side of the people, their
rewards, all laudable endeavours, all hard work so
that, you know, the less you tax people, the more able they are
to take charge of their lives and run their lives with freedom
and autonomy. We don't have that situation at
the moment. The more you look at it with all
these expensive hair brain ideas, the more impoverished the
people become, the more enslaved they are.
And at the back of all this we have, you know, when Sakir was
interviewed on television, he preferred Davos, the
Westminster. What's what does it tell you
about a politician who is more interested in, in supranational
non governmental organisations and running the government to
serve the the people of Britain. So I despair, but I despair with
repassion to serve the British people and invite them, those
who are still living in in despair and doldrums to come out
and join us. We, we need one voice.
Will the country write again? Wow.
One voice and I think actually take it's very interesting
listening to you talking about the incentivization of doctors
because you know when I think back when you think back to the
pandemic and I say that in inverted commas, how much GPS
were being paid to jab people in care homes, inject people.
I mean, pushing, pushing vaccinations and other drugs
onto people because obviously they're being incentivized and
they're being given a narrative from up above.
And so perhaps we could talk about if we think doctors are
getting greedy. But it's kind of a double edged
question because you're right when you're saying that people
aren't getting GP appointments, they're not many or many people
are telling me that they're going to their GP, their GP
surgery is empty. It's just empty waiting rooms.
And I can actually say I've experienced that too.
But every time I've had to make an appointment with my GP, for
one thing or another, it's always been a nurse practitioner
and yet the surgery is completely empty.
So when you say that we need to be looking at the pay, the pay
of doctors conditions, what we're teaching them, I totally
get that. But I would ask you, do you
think doctors have got a future, same as nurses?
Because with all of this automation, AI, medical devices,
now nurses don't seem to touch patients.
We're using iPads, devices, telemetry and all sorts of weird
and wonderful tests and robots, robots as well, robot surgery.
Is there going to be a need for doctors?
Or in the era that we can see coming up with transhumans, are
we more likely to be needing engineers in the future and
doctors won't be needed? Is it that doctors have become
the turkeys at Christmas, I think is what I'm trying to say.
Thank you, Debbie. I think your fears about
Christmas voting, turkeys voting for Christmas is absolutely
right. I, I, I can never see a
situation where human compassion and a human judgement can be
supplanted by AI. I think we should be very
careful about where we position. AIAI should be our servant, not
our master. Taking I've jotted a few things
taking the, the, the issue about vaccination.
That was one of the awful things I had to deal with in my
professional life as I approached the end of my working
life. In fact, now I, I was very
active in research in my younger days.
I was in research registrar on rheumatology.
And you know, when we do research we call it clinical
trials. We, we have something called
informed consent and informed consent at that stage is
normally at about phase two, if not phase three.
Phase 3 is when licenses approve to treat people, but still
monitoring and that's the situation with the COVID
vaccine. It was in phase three clinical
trials. Regardless of whether you
believe that there is a virus or vaccines are real or whatever it
is, the the mechanics of running the COVID vaccine programme was
totally flawed and unethical because A, it have the long term
safety data D, there was no a clear offer of alternative
measures to treat and those of my colleagues in the early days
who dare to speak out, it was censured.
So there was a total loss of freedom of communication and
discussion, freedom of speech within the medical profession
and that is a very dangerous thing.
So it was lack of informed consent, it was censorship on
doctors who were trying to offer assistance to the patients.
So patient advocacy was left we outside in the cold.
Now when we do clinical trials in phase three, we're doing
small batches in small numbers. And what we do is we tell people
what it's about. We monitor for safety.
So we do what we call pharmacovigilance.
So we check the vital signs, we monitor the the liver functions,
renal function, the ECG, whatever it takes monitor on a
regular basis. None of the the patients I had
who had the vaccine were monitored in that way.
My own wife had nothing of an informed consent.
You'll be all right. You might get a bit of itching,
soreness round the injection site.
And off she went. And she had three weeks of hell.
And towards the end of of any study or halfway through a
trial, we would keep asking people, you know, if there's
anything unto it, let us know. And if it's a bad thing, we'll
do all the investigations. Stop this, stop the medication
and put you back on whatever it is.
There was nothing of the sort because when patients came back
and I had a ear to how people were saying to my colleagues,
they weren't given the support, they weren't given the the due
care and investigation of what could go wrong.
I remember very clearly when I had a patient with venous
thrombosis of the auxiliary vein and when I heard that.
Lisa Shaw had certification of death related to the vaccine or
cerebral thrombosis. I, I wrote an e-mail, I was just
out of the board, the CCG board of my county and I wrote to the
chairman and said look, I wrote an open letter to all the
colleagues, GP colleagues up and down the county.
If you come across anything unusual in terms of thrombosis,
let me know with anonymised data.
Within a few minutes I had an e-mail back from the chairman
saying you'll do nothing of the sort.
We have MHRE. So there was a complete
shutdown. There was a complete shutdown of
discussion. There was censorship of people
who dare mention things like hydroxychloroquine or
ivormectin. It is not the way science
progresses, it's not the way we treat people.
You should allow doctors efficacy, the patient care of
the patients, not care of the pharmaceutical interest, care of
government edits. It is wrong.
So I felt towards the end of my career there was far too much
political interference in, in the sanctity of professional
care. And that's something I think is
is, is is something that needs addressing, something that no
political party at the moment looks at.
I had, I remember very clearly Richard Tyson where Doctor Bull
LED people in healthcare should have vaccine and there should be
some mandates and so on. And to my horror, you know, I
used to give regular talks in the pub where I eventually stood
as a candidate one evening a week before the deadline that
Sajid Javid was going to impose a no, no, no, Jack, no job rule.
We're normally we'll be speaking to 20, at most 30 people.
The pub had 120 people of physiotherapies and doctors,
nurses, they're all clamouring for exemption and the GPS would
not sign. So I'm afraid a lot of my
colleagues have been bought, a lot of my colleagues have been
captured by government dogma, which I think is very, very sad.
It would take a long time for the medical profession of this
country to regain the respect that it needs and deserves to
treat people properly. You've given me a lot.
To think about, and I'm sure you've given our audience a lot
to think about too, but you know, I want to take it back in
a way before I come on to the patient because I want to talk
about the patient. I just want to refer back to
when you were talking about informed consent, because I did
similar to you. I wrote to the Royal College of
General Practitioners and about informed consent.
And what I asked was what the ingredients and everything to do
with the vaccine, what they were and what the serious adverse
reactions or what doctors had been told to expect with regards
to serious adverse reactions. And I received a letter back
from Doctor Michael Mulholland. We've put it on the UK column a
number of times and he replied and said doctors can't tell you
the ingredients of the vaccine because they're not told and
they're also not aware because it's novel, experimental,
they're not aware of the serious adverse reactions.
So therefore, my argument would be that actually informed
consent never existed and doesn't exist because if nobody
is aware of the ingredients, I mean, a chef, for example, if
they serve you up a, a dinner in a restaurant, they have to know
everything about the food that they're serving to you with
regards to your allergies and your dietary needs.
And you know, we've, we've got law to, to, to hold chefs and
cooks and people that are preparing food to account.
And yet we seem to have a situation where we've got GPS
that are being incentivized to give these novel experimental
injections when they've got no clue what they're giving at all.
So I think I'd probably say, well, you know what?
Informed consent never existed. And I'm very upset that doctors
or that most doctors seem to have lost the ability either to
critically think or to have a moral compass that's in what I
believe would be in a a very much more comfortable position.
If they alerted patients that the solution that they were
getting, they actually didn't know what it was or what it was
going to do to them, I think that would be far more honest
and then allow the patient to make the decision themselves
based on those findings. And you mentioned the MHRA and I
have been looking as, as you probably know very closely at
the MHRA, I've attended every single MHRA board meeting.
And when you said there that you know that we're not looking
after the patients, we're looking after big pharma and
we're looking after industry, we absolutely are.
Because the MHRA is nothing but a massive, in my opinion,
revolving door because everybody on the board or pretty much
everybody on the board has got conflicts of interest, of
interest with pharmaceutical companies or innovative
companies that are active. And that you would think, well,
no, actually that's a revolving door.
And 86% of the MHRA is funded by industry.
So clearly, they don't have the patient's best interests or the
patient safety in mind. And that's what I was going to
talk to you about next, really, because at the end of the day,
Tech, you're a doctor and I'm a nurse and I've been on a
government board. So I've done a little bit, I've
sniffed around. It wasn't very pleasant, the
dusty corridors of Westminster. And you've been involved in a
political environment for many years now.
But let's talk about the patients.
Let's go back to who we are and what we trained at, because I'm
very worried. I don't know what you're
thinking, but I'm very worried that it appears to be that
patients are being made into paranoid hypochondriacs were
worried, well, perhaps as we would call them, they don't seem
to be able to think on their feet anymore.
And I'm worried that they're losing, that they've not only
lost trust of medical professionals, but they've
they've also become so frightened about sickness,
wanting to get cancer, you know, all of these terrible diseases
that nobody's ever heard of or a resurging coming back.
What is going on? How can we reassure the public
to take care of their own health, but in a way that's safe
because I don't see the NHS as being a very safe place at the
moment. What are your thoughts on that?
Thank you, Debbie. I think you are writing
anxieties. The NHS is not what it used to
be. You'll take a lot of time and
determination to change the outlook of our health system.
I've mentioned before that there are several things in the
medical profession and healthcare in general that are
not right. There are people who worship the
NHS and so they should because I believe that whilst, as I
mentioned, the Gaussian curve, whilst the majority of people
are reasonably well read and the top end of people are very, very
conscious of the good things to do, the best things to do to
ensure health. There is the the lower half of
people which depend on a reliable service.
So we need to ensure a top of the health delivery tree, the
very privileged set of doctors, They need to understand they are
in the profession to look after people.
They're there to serve the people.
I have no problem with doctors becoming rich through hard work,
through good reputation. So on on the four points that I
have for correcting the professional status, we should
have dedication. We should have a profession
that's dedicated to the care of the people.
After the after they've dedicated themselves, obviously
the reputation will expand. And this is all very
traditional. When you are a good doctor,
people look up to you. And when your reputation
expands, your practice. Oscar.
Now, when the government set very tight rules and micromanage
and say, look, we give you so much for doing this and so much
for doing that, when the vast majority of income streams come
from managed incentives, you have stifled competition.
So it doesn't matter whether you sign up with Doctor A or Doctor
B. They all have to earn the living
and they all have to follow the standard protocol.
That defies clinical acumen that that that defeats autonomous
advocacy of the patient. I keep coming back to this
advocacy and patient. I'm in the profession to look
after the people and it is my bread and butter would like to
be left alone to look after the people for the best of my
ability. So competition is very
important. Now I, I have friends in, in
Malaysia, friends in Australia, friends in Canada and they have
a very healthy sum of coexistence between people
choosing going to the state system and the private system.
And I mean Australia operates a very, very successful cross
referral system. But as long as we have the the
4th component sound regulation, then we can be assured that
whatever people choose, their interests is looked after.
So I would say DRCR, we have dedication to build reputation
and to ensure that the standards are kept.
There should be competition and then finally there should be
sensible regulation, regulation that that is essential, not the
regulation that sensuous people from doing best for the
patients. So I, I have colleagues, I mean,
there's David Cartland, there is Sam white people who stood up
and say this is not the right way to manage COVID.
They had struck off. It is beyond belief.
It's breathtaking the censorship that's happening.
Regulation should be about not just protect the patients, but
also ensuring that there is professional excellence.
But most of all, the protection should never be for outside
interest. I mean, look at this COVID
vaccine situation. The the companies that make the
the manufacturers that make the vaccines are given indemnity by
the government. So if there's anything wrong and
there's a very high level of proof required, it's the
taxpayers that pay for the taxpayers damage when the
manufacturers should be held accountable for anything that's
gone wrong with their products. Not the government, not the
people, not the government using the people money to pay the
people. It should be the manufacturers.
But we have such a topsy situation at the moment, it
really defies common sense and belief.
Well, I'm very proud that my, my colleagues in alliance with
Democracy Freedom understand this imperative and fully
supportive of my, of my commitment to to ensure that we,
we going forward, we have a health system that looks after
the people. Politics is serving the people,
not serving the government. You know, the government forgets
we, the taxpayers pay their salaries, pay their money.
We should have them service. And This is why I keep reminding
those people are political homeless.
We have a party here that believes the whip comes from the
people, not the party are para chicks.
That's very, very. Important, but I also want to
just head you off in a slightly different direction, although
similar, but as AGP tech, obviously you have got an
interest in primary care and secondary care because you're
the bridge, right? So you're the shop window for us
to access if we need any form of hospital treatment.
And it always surprises me when people go on about old patients
are blocking, you know, bed blocking and we can't get them
out of hospital because nobody wants to be in hospital.
It makes out that people are wanting to be in hospital and
that they're happy to stay in hospital for weeks and weeks.
They're not. They don't want to be in
hospital. That's the last place they want
to be. But we've also got, you know,
this little Darzi report that came out and said that the NHS
was falling apart basically, which we knew anyway.
We didn't really, we really need Lord Darzi to do to, to say that
to us because we knew that. But that was an NHS report on
the state of the NHS. No mention in it really of
social care. And of course, when people say,
oh, you know, beds are being blocked and people are stuck in
hospital, a lot of the time it's because we're not, we haven't
got anywhere for these people to go to because we don't have a
package of social care. So I think sometimes we separate
the NHS and social care, whereas we should actually put them
together and remember that you can't have one without the
other. And in social care, I can see
that, you know, we're getting patients almost being blamed for
being in hospital. And then how are we going to get
them out of hospital? Well, if we can't get them out
of hospital one way, perhaps they never leave hospital or
they leave hospital from what we call the ground or the the lower
ground floor because they've died.
So what is the future? What would you change about the
NHS? What would be your first thing
that you would do to change the NHS for the in the betterment
for patients for us? I think it's very important to
recognize that there is a lot of passing the buck in the NHS.
So when I was locoming in in casualty, I saw a system where
there was a lot of delay. You know, you, you get people
coming to the window declaring what they have wrong and then
they get triaged by a nurse and then going to see either a, a
physician associate or whatever it is.
And then he goes on to a doctor, a junior doctor, and then goes
to a slightly more senior doctor.
And if the problem doesn't get resolved, he goes to the most
senior doctor. Now when I was on the CCCCG
board and there were a few of us who who suggested that really
the senior decision makers should be right at the front and
say look, Mr. so and so, your problem must come in straight
away and we'll do this then the other for you, Miss so and so.
Your problem is not important. You should go back to your GP
instead of cluttering this place up and your GP, the GP should
not keep sending people away to casualty.
This is the problem, you know, they, they, they follow the
guidelines. They, they look at these, the
financial situation, this patient is going to be a problem
to me. If, if, if there's anything
wrong, I'll be castigated off. You go to casualty.
That is not the situation. You they should have a sense of
responsibility and accountability.
So we we need senior decision makers making the decision in a
timely fashion so that patients are the right way.
And similarly when you have patients on the wards, there is
so much delay. When my wife was in the hospital
for example, we wait a day, the consultant came and say right,
you can go home now, why the heck did it not happen a few
days earlier when there was when she was lying in the bed doing
nothing. So bit blocking has nothing to
do with a patient is it has to do with clinical decision
making. So the more senior decision
makers are involved, the more clear cut and more dynamic the
team is, the better it is for the patients.
I think it's it's, it's it's a parlor state of affairs where
you know, people say, oh, it's my my shift finishing a better
clock up. I have colleagues who say we've
been on taking too many difficult cases because that
would take me over the clock out time medicine.
I'm sure in your profession, in your line of work, in nurses,
people work hard and they don't clock in, clock out as as the
way some people do nowadays. It would take cases where you
know, it's it's avoiding trouble.
Is this avoiding trouble culture and doing what what is safe
under the big umbrella? It doesn't help the patients at
all. And it ultimately damages the
profession because you're not serving the people, you're
serving your own interests by saying I'll get my money, I'll
minimize the risk to myself and then I should be all right and
I'll cost gently to retirement. And that's it.
We we have become so emasculated.
As a professional, you know, the NHS used to be the peregrine of
excellence the world says they should have.
And now they have Shield away looking at how badly Ronnie
days. Yeah, they certainly, I mean,
honestly, Tech, you're, you're singing.
We're singing from the same hymn sheet and I could sit here and
talk to you for hours about how things were done in my day and
how we looked after patients and what the NHS was all about.
And you know, I'm thinking actually, after having spoken to
all of our experts just recently, many retired
consultants such as yourself, and I'm thinking, is it time for
us dinosaurs to return to be able to tell the youngsters what
the NHS actually used to be like?
Because I think they don't realize what it used to be like.
And they're going along with whatever narrative because the
training has been. So I mean it with with nurses
Project 2000 I think was the kiss of death for sure.
And I know now that we're seeing physician associates when we
don't know who we're seeing basically in the NHS anymore.
And I'm thinking, is it time for the likes of you and me and
Doctor Robin Kelly and Doctor Robert Everett to come back and
tell people, the youngsters, what the NHS was like, That it's
a vocation, that the patient does come first, that it's do no
harm, all of those things that we were trained to do.
Is it time that we've all got to come back?
And, and before I hand across to you to answer that, I just want
to reiterate, I am hearing from a lot of doctors.
However, apart from the few nurses that I've managed to
interview over the last couple of years, I'm not hearing from
many nurses. So if there are any nurses, I
hope that tech has inspired you to speak up because perhaps we
need to organise a group or something where we tell the
youngsters how things are really done in the NHS.
What do you think? I couldn't agree more.
I couldn't agree more, Debbie. We might be dinosaurs, but I
think there is no substitute for the years of experience.
And for for those of us who are curious about what makes things
tick, the insight is invaluable. You can't put a value to it.
So I humbly say that the likes of you and I do have a place do
have a role to play in our health system going forward.
The trouble with the young generation is unfortunately
being subjected to a culture of of deference to politicalness.
It's not political right. We need to recently dynamics of
the profession versus the girls set against the government.
We we should have the that degree of autonomy to decide
what we need to do best for our patients.
As far as nurses are concerned, I, I have counsellor nurse who
was in trouble for standing up for patients who did not want
the COVID vaccine. We need to get rid of
censorship. A lot of people, you know,
whether they're doctors or nurses, unfortunately, they then
rock the boat. They then put a head above the
parapet because they have mortgages to pay put on a table
and that sort of thing. We need a body of people, an
organization like the alliance with the freedom where clearly
be defended. I think we need to protect
freedom of speech, freedom of association, and encourage
debate because that's the only way we can progress and advance
ourselves as as a vibrant society.
Oh, that. Lovely word debate.
Because at the end of the day, tech science is fluid and
everything's a theory because it moves all the time.
And if we're not being allowed to debate and we're not being
allowed to challenge, then we're under tyrannical rule for sure.
I'm keeping my eye on the clock. And before I come to you for
your final comments before your last word, I just want to ask
you because I know it's something close to your heart.
I want to ask you about D dimers, the D dimer test.
And I also want to ask you quickly too, about children,
because I heard you say something very interesting about
informed consent with regards to children.
So perhaps we'll take that first, the informed consent and
children, because you were talking about the Gillick
Principle, which many people may have heard of, is to do with
whether children can receive contraception without parental
permission and it goes back to Victoria Gillick.
But clearly when it came to the vaccinations, when we were
talking about a novel, untested, untrialled mRNA, often
injection, what is your thoughts regard to when people say, Oh,
no, children can make up their own minds, they've got their own
opinions. They can give permission to have
these injections without any parents being involved.
Because we're seeing a lot of cases at the moment where
parents are, especially parents of learning disabled, Down
syndrome, children that are vulnerable.
They're being still as we speak, four years down the line.
They're being pushed into letting their children make
their own decision or that someone else is making the
decision in their best interests.
What are your views on that? Because I know they're going to
be a lot of parents and grandparents watching right now
and the job is still being rolled out to children on
Gillick. If you remember Victoria Gillick
situation has to do with contraception.
Now, there isn't a very high level of science required to
understand that conception happens without contraception.
So if somebody understands, if, if a teenager understands that
if you don't take protective measures, there is a risk,
sorry, a female young person doesn't take the protective
measures, then they're going to get pregnant.
So that is a very simple concept.
You cannot apply the Gillick Principle based on very
fundamental reproductive knowledge to something that
requires molecular medicine, understanding molecular medicine
and how immunology works. So I think government, the
government should be on the side people and say, look, we tend
the all the data by the manufacturers, all the data and
we've collated information saying that the risk now certain
such the benefits and such and such, then we will have informed
consent. And I don't think that level of
understanding which distills into informed consent can be
left to the teenager to decide. Again, the Gaussian curve it
might be a few very talented teenagers who understand
science, but the vast majority under the Gaussian bell will
probably take whatever message or information is given by the
government. So I think the government has
the responsibility to ensure the safety and health of our
youngsters going forward. Gillick in COVID vaccine.
My simple answer is no did I'm a very interesting.
I was on radio man's field explaining about a young 27 year
old who had injection and 24 hours later came to the surgery.
She was fit and well. She goes to the gym three times
a week. Young profession, 27 year old
young lady and she had anxiliary vein thrombosis.
Now as a nurse, you know most and venous thrombosis happened
in older people, people with stasis and all sorts of problems
and it usually happens in legs, not in the arm.
I did AD dimer. It was a Friday evening.
So I did AD dimer and I left the message that my colleagues
should be contacted. Whatever the results is, the
results came back. My colleague thought, hang on a
second, why did Tank do this on a school and arm, you see?
But the D dimer was was elevated nearly six times above normal
accounting for age. And he thought, well, whatever
it is, I better send him send it to Casualty.
So she went to Casualty and she was given anticoagulation.
You couldn't find using ultrasound where the clone was,
but you know, the thrombosis wasn't on a main vein.
It was microtrombosis. And this is the, the nature of
the problem. But none of the colleagues were
talking about it because if you remember, there was blanket
censorship on discussion, blanket censorship on on
anything that might reduce vaccine uptake.
Thankfully, and hopefully this this patient recovered and we
heard nothing more. Anticoagulation will stop after
a few days as the arm settled down.
But there are people less fortunate now.
I got letters asking why was I doing more dime D Diamond than
normal and why was I checking troponins?
And I remember working casualty. I was just coming onto my shift
when a nurse said oh I was going to discharge this 15 year old
who was brought by a mum after playing football, football
training with chest pain, shortness of breath and a
totally healthy boy. Never had a history of asthma,
full fully athletic. And I said look what was the
history. He says well mum thinks he had
COVID and had a COVID jab a few few weeks ago.
I said well you'd better do some trouble in and sit the mum
outside with a child and we'll see what happens.
The result came back 45 minutes later, 10 times above normal, 10
times above normal. So this boy developed
myocarditis. The nurse said, you know, I'm so
lucky, lucky I had this test done because the other
colleagues didn't think about it.
She was going to be discharged as a case of musculoskeletal
pain, the provider to return if things didn't get better.
So I said, look, don't bother calling the registrar for
upstairs, just send the child across to the cardiac centre.
Mackinitis, 15 year old, I wrote in the Daily Express, why are
they doing this? Why did Jonathan Van Tam says
he's commencing clinical trials in our children for goodness
sake. So I would encourage, I would
encourage my colleagues who are continue who are in practice and
retired now to do all these tests according to the clinical
instincts and serve the patient, not the government, not the
farmers tech. What you've said there is, I
think incredibly helpful and I hope viewers and listeners will
particularly those last two comments about D dimers and also
about the Gillick principle for parents and grandparents who
want some clarification on that. I hope you'll find that helpful.
Um, regarding the D dimer test, I just want to, for people that
I, I said D dimer and I suddenly thought, oh, I should have
explained what AD dimer is. So AD Dimer test is a test where
you can detect micro clots, little tiny clots that you
wouldn't. Perhaps the patient is even
unaware of themselves, often unaware of themselves, and
everything's a bit of a mystery. Unless you have this test called
AD Dimer, you won't necessarily find out.
But what I'm finding out from more and more people, including
one of my very own neighbours who I only spoke to yesterday,
in that they've been poorly for a very long time.
And now they're starting to realize that it was probably the
injection that has made them very ill.
And I suggested that they asked their doctor for AD dimer.
They've been refused three Times Now.
The doctor said you don't need one.
I'm not doing 1. And I've heard that from a lot
of patients. So there is that worry, that
concern. So when you said to my
colleagues, please do the tests, my message would be exactly the
same. If a patient is coming into you,
please believe them because that's what I'm hearing more
from so many people is that the doctor doesn't believe us.
The doctor says it's in our head.
The doctor won't give us the tests that we're asking for and
yet is asking us to take tests that we don't need.
So everything's back to front tech.
I'm looking at the clock and I'm I'm just so grateful for all
that you're doing. But before we throw to your last
word, is there anything, I mean, I know there's a million topics
we could talk about, but is there anything in particular
that you would like to bring up today that that I've already for
probably forgotten or I've just gone across because there's so
much going on in my head? Is there anything else you would
like to bring up I want? To assure the public that, you
know, whilst I'm hoping to retire even from politics, I'm
still working very hard trying to get small independent parties
and candidates, independent candidates to be on a platform
of solidarity. If nothing there, there will be
greater. The greater the numbers, the
greater the strength. And if we are on the solid
platform of solidarity, we are better enabled to serve the
people and the interests of our country.
But first and foremost, if you wish to take an interest in
politics, do not hold back. Come and talk to us.
I'm on Twitter as at doctor tech com join the party and there is
a discount discounted period at the moment.
And we would like to hear what you want to say, what you want
to do, how you want to create your supporter base in your
locality. And we do everything to support
you. I think it's time the public,
the good people in this country take back control on errant
politicians, people who are listening to super national NGOs
rather than to the people in this country.
We need Britain to be great again.
Come and join us in the Alliance for Democracy and Freedom.
I love that. And I would say exactly the
same, you know, if you if you're enjoying what Tech is saying and
you want to support him, the links will be in the article
beneath this interview. Because people like Tech who are
going out there doing, doing something, those are the people
we need to follow. Those are the people we need to
thank, the people that are standing up and doing something.
And you can do something to you can also share our material.
Because if you like what the UK column does and you've enjoyed
this interview and you found the information helpful, please
share it. Please tell people about it.
And please encourage people to join us because unless we're
together, we're a part, right? So let's all stick together.
And on that note, Doctor Tech Kong, I want to thank you so
much for all you are doing because it's a huge amount.
And I do think that the more experienced of us, maybe the
more mature of us that have experience of the NHS really
ought to get together and start to teach the youngsters what
they might be missing. But on on that note, I'm going
to hand to you for your last word with grateful thanks and
gratitude from UK column. Thank you Doctor Tech Kong, it's
over to you. Thank.
You very much, Debbie. Thank you, Debbie.
I think going forward, we should not despair.
We should hold on to our hopes and let's work together for the
good of our country, for the good of our family, and to all
of of you, I wish you every success.