My four-year inquisition for writing the truth on Covid-19 vaccine data

Guest: Niall McCrae

Florence Nightingale, founder of the nursing profession, was fastidious about data. She knew that there were two aspects to care: engaging with the patient as an individual human being, and applying generic knowledge in interventions. The latter, Nightingale insisted ahead of her time, should be based on evidence rather than opinion. Numeracy was thus crucial to nursing.

Throughout my career, the Nursing & Midwifery Council has been my professional regulator. I qualified as a psychiatric nurse in 1990, then practised in various services before my last clinical role as manager of a mental health crisis service. I moved into research, completed my PhD at the Institute of Psychiatry, and then was appointed to a lecturing position at the Florence Nightingale School of Nursing & Midwifery at King’s College London. The latter post required my status as a nursing registrant.

Recently I left the university to work for the Workers of England trade union, a job with flexibility that enables me to spend time on my other pursuit as a social commentator. I started writing for websites such as Conservative Woman over ten years ago, covering a wide range of topics. When the Covid-19 debacle began, I used my expertise in health and evidence-based practice in articles on lockdown,
masks and vaccination. I always made a clear distinction between facts, theory and opinion in my writing.
When the vaccines were introduced in late 2020, I feared that blind faith and propaganda about an oxymoronic ‘miracle of science’ would be followed by less impressive and potentially harmful outcomes.

On 4th March 2021 the American website Gateway Pundit published my article ‘British government study confirms Covid-19 vaccine risk’. This related to a Public Health England report indicating that infections increased soon after injection, and I suggested that this may be due to a known phenomenon of a temporary depletion in immunity after a vaccine is taken. I have written more controversial pieces on Covid-19, mostly unseen by followers of the official narrative. But the Gateway Pundit article got wide attention because this website, following the US presidential election and concerns over vote-rigging, was persistently targeted by so-called fact-checkers. Although my article was factually accurate, a fact-check website declared that it was ‘misleading’, a verdict that was hardly substantiated.

On 8th March 2021 I was reported to the NMC by a ‘Dr Byrne’ for writing to the detriment of the mass vaccination programme. He had read my article (or at least the fact-check) and found me on the NMC register. Note that I had not identified myself as a nurse. I subsequently received notice from the NMC of an impending investigation of my fitness to practise. This was unusual: normally the NMC conducts
a screening process before deciding to take a case further. My wrong-think was obviously a very serious concern.

The allegation was: -
‘Failure to uphold your position as a registered nurse – in that you promoted health advice which is contrary to official health advice in the context of a global pandemic. In doing so you encouraged the public to distrust official government advice and undermined trust and confidence in the nursing profession.’ In fact, I hadn’t given any advice, but written a journalistic report. From the outset I was confident that the NMC had no reasonable case against me. My initial task was to submit my account, and three experts supported me with principled and evidence-based arguments.

I am indebted to Dr Helen Westwood, a general practitioner and member of HART, Paul Cuddin, a pharmaceutical and biotechnology analyst with statistical expertise (also HART), and Professor Roger Watson, a nursing scholar of global influence, at the University of Hull. I shall quote from each of their statements:

PC: ‘On the basis that there is consistent, increasing real-world and clinical evidence of increased infections in the two weeks after vaccination, the points raised by Dr Niall McCrae need to be addressed as a matter of urgency.’
HW: ‘It appears that Dr McCrae is being targeted for raising questions that more medical professionals should be asking. To penalise him would not only be a disservice to him and his profession but to our patients who deserve answers to the questions he is asking.’
RW: ‘I re-read the article and found it hard to reconcile the allegations being made with the article I was reading. From the title and throughout the contents of the article, there is nothing that supports the allegations.’

Surely the NMC, reputedly overwhelmed with referrals of Covid-19 dissidents, would not waste time and resources on such a flimsy case? They took a long time to do anything. I had almost forgotten about it when, in September 2022, I received a report by two investigators (Velia Soames and Victoria Taylor).
The tone of the investigators’ report had the anger of the Civid-19 zealot:

‘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.’

On my exposure as a nurse, the investigators decided that I had implied this by use of my ‘Dr’ title. That’s ludicrous in itself, but more so when you consider the remarks on my ability to understand data.

‘In our view, 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.’ This seems to suggest that I am unable to read scientific reports on the effectiveness and safety of medical treatment. How do they know this? I have written almost a hundred peer-reviewed academic papers, examined health-related PhDs, and sat on
a NHS research ethics committee for eleven years. In 2020 I wrote (with Edward Purssell) a definitive manual on systematic literature reviewing, recently published in a second edition. You’d think that I deserve a little more credit. But isn’t it ironic that the NMC belittles nursing knowledge?

The investigators were warming up: -
‘Your actions as alleged in Regulatory Concern 1 could have dissuaded members of the public from getting vaccinated, contrary to public health advice. We are of the view that the regulatory concern in your case is serious, and, for the reasons given above, had the potential to place members of the public at an unwarranted risk of harm. Nurses occupy a position of privilege and trust and have a professional
responsibility to maintain the health and safety of their patients at all times. We are of the view that your alleged failings could also represent an abuse of your position of authority and trust and may indicate an underlying attitudinal problem which is hard to remediate.’
On the last point, there may be a need for a mirror in the NMC offices. Although I was polite and cooperative in my correspondence, I was regarded as arrogant for not accepting that I’d done anything wrong.
‘The concern in your case could suggest underlying problems with your attitude. You appear not to accept the regulatory concern, and your responses to us suggest you do not intend to change your practice in the future. We are therefore of the view that the concerns in your case satisfy the requirements of our guidance and, in our view, are less likely to be remediable.’
This is the justice of the Soviet Union, where Gulags were filled with thought criminals who could never be rehabilitated. The experts writing on my behalf were indirectly criticised: -
‘We’ve noted in this regard the supporting material you have provided with your response of May 2021. We did not see in your response any acknowledgment that your article had the potential to cause harm to patients or the public, nor any acknowledgment of the potential for damage to public confidence in the professions.’
Like me, Westwood, Cuddon and Watson must try harder next time. The investigators thought that I was a very bad person, not befitting of nursing registration.

‘We are therefore of the view that the risk of you repeating this conduct remains, and in our view, 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 concluded by recommending a fitness-to-practise hearing. But first the case would go to the NMC’s legal advisors.

And then I heard nothing. Months went by, then years. Eventually in March 2025, I received a letter from the NMC stating that the legal advice was not to proceed with the case. However, that is merely advice and I was told that a NMC committee could decide to pursue the case. I was invited to a preliminary hearing, with a full hearing scheduled as a contingency one month later.

I was not expecting that the NMC would go against the legal advice, but I agreed to attend the initial hearing, with my legal representative Robin Tilbrook. Then I was contacted by Michael Cockayne, an Employment Advisor for the Workers of England Union with a background in Occupational Health, and a HART member. He had seen my fitness-to-practise listing on the NMC website, with six days allotted. He thought that I must be in big trouble, until I told him about my case.

The preliminary hearing, in May, went smoothly. Before Robin Tilbrook could present on my behalf, the NMC legal advisor stated that there was no public interest in pursuing the case. Tilbrook concurred with this, emphasising that the NMC should not be interfering with my right to freedom of expression. After an adjournment the chairwoman informed me of the decision to drop the case. After four years and two
months, I was Scot-free!

The NMC was corrupted by Covid-19, and it needs to learn from its mistakes. I was fortunate, but other nurses have been persecuted and ejected from the register - with public shaming. I am grateful for the support from HART, and hope that my case may be used to demonstrate the importance of standing your ground against a censorial regime.

Note: Niall's offending article from March 2021 is linked here. Do read it and try to work out which bit is misinformation - the HART team are stumped. The Public Health England paper he quoted revealing a 48% rise in covid infections in the first 10 days after vaccination is here.

It is also interesting to read a damning review of the NMC, who seemed to be busier chasing those questioning covid management than investigating sexual offenders.