By Dr. Niall McCrae
In the chaotic saga of COVID-19, health professions emerged as staunch enforcers of the official narrative. My personal experience with the UK Nursing & Midwifery Council (NMC) serves as a testament to this dynamic, as I faced charges for allegedly contradicting government vaccination guidance and endangering patients’ lives after publishing a factual article on Gateway Pundit.
As a senior lecturer in psychiatric nursing at King’s College London, I was under the regulatory watch of the NMC. When COVID-19 vaccines were rolled out, I harbored serious concerns that the blind faith and propaganda surrounding this so-called ‘miracle of science’ would result in less than stellar and potentially harmful outcomes.
On March 4, 2021, my article titled ‘British government study confirms Covid-19 vaccine risk’ was published on Gateway Pundit. This piece referenced a Public Health England report indicating an uptick in infections shortly after vaccination, which I explained through the lens of a known phenomenon: temporary immunity depletion.
British Government Study Confirms Covid-19 Vaccine Risk: Infections INCREASE in Fortnight after Jab – Updated
Despite the factual accuracy of my article, a fact-checking website deemed it ‘misleading’. Subsequently, on March 8, I was informed by the NMC that a ‘Dr Byrne’ had referred my article to them, claiming that I was a threat to public health for promoting advice counter to official guidance during a global pandemic.
From the very beginning, I was confident that the NMC lacked a legitimate case against me. I submitted a comprehensive statement, bolstered by insights from three experts: physician Helen Westwood, biostatistician Paul Cuddin, and nursing professor Roger Watson. Cuddin remarked that ‘there is consistent, increasing real-world and clinical evidence of increased infections in the two weeks after vaccination,’ thus advocating for the urgent consideration of the points I raised.
As the NMC was inundated with referrals regarding COVID-19 dissenters, their investigation proceeded at a glacial pace. It wasn’t until September 2022 that I received a report from investigators Velia Soames and Victoria Taylor, who applied a distinctly Kafkaesque logic:
‘It isn’t our role to make a final decision about the accuracy of your article or to have an opinion about its contents. Our role is to establish whether there is enough evidence to make it a realistic possibility that the Fitness to Practise Committee would first decide that the comments you made were in line with governmental health advice at the time, and if not, whether your comments had the potential to encourage the public to distrust official government advice and as such undermine trust and confidence in the nursing profession.’
This absurdity implied that my academic title somehow misrepresented my qualifications:
‘The title of Dr, or indeed nurse, would likely lead members of the public to believe you had expert medical knowledge in this field, and that your advice/comments could be trusted, when in fact it appears you did not have such expert knowledge.’
It seems they underestimated my ability to engage in the analysis of medical treatments, despite my extensive background, including nearly a hundred peer-reviewed scientific publications and a manual on systematic literature reviewing. Ironically, the NMC seemed to be undermining the very profession it was meant to uphold.
The investigators pointed to ‘underlying problems with your attitude,’ asserting that I appeared unwilling to accept the regulatory concerns raised against me. They claimed my responses indicated a lack of intention to modify my practice in the future. Although I remained polite and cooperative, my perceived arrogance was deemed ‘hard to remediate,’ echoing a justice system reminiscent of the Soviet Union, where dissenters were often labeled as irredeemable thought criminals.
‘We are therefore of the view that you are currently a risk to the health, safety or well-being of the public, meaning that your practice needs to be restricted in some way.’
The investigators recommended a fitness-to-practise hearing, but first, they needed to consult with NMC lawyers. A protracted wait ensued, stretching into years. Eventually, in March 2025, I received a letter from the NMC stating that legal counsel advised against prosecution. Nevertheless, the NMC committee decided to proceed with the case. I was summoned to a preliminary hearing, with a full hearing scheduled for the following month.
Accompanied by solicitor Robin Tilbrook, I prepared to defend myself, raising a crucial question: if registrants are prohibited from opposing government policy, why hasn’t the NMC investigated nurses who staged walkouts during strikes?
The initial hearing unfolded without incident. The NMC legal advisor acknowledged that there was no public interest in pursuing the case. Tilbrook concurred, adamantly asserting that the NMC should not infringe upon my right to free speech. Following an adjournment, the chairwoman announced the decision to drop the case entirely.
Like many professional organizations, the NMC succumbed to the pressures of the COVID-19 crisis. After a grueling four years and two months, I was finally exonerated, though numerous others have faced persecution and public shaming, resulting in expulsion from the register. I hope my experience serves as an encouragement for others to resist the censorial tide.
