By Dr. Niall McCrae
In the covid debacle, health professions played a major role in enforcing the official narrative. I can now reveal my experience with the UK Nursing & Midwifery Council (NMC), who charged me with contradicting government guidance on vaccination and risking patients’ lives, after writing an entirely factual article on Gateway Pundit.
As a senior lecturer in psychiatric nursing at King’s College London, the NMC was my professional regulator.
When covid vaccines were introduced, I feared that blind faith and propaganda about an oxymoronic ‘miracle of science’ would lead to less impressive and harmful outcomes.
On 4th March 2021, Gateway Pundit published my article ‘British government study confirms Covid-19 vaccine risk’. The article is linked below. This related to a Public Health England report showing increased infections soon after vaccination, which I attributed to a known phenomenon of temporary depletion in immunity.
Although factually accurate, a fact-check website labeled my article as ‘misleading’. On 8th March I was notified by the NMC of a referral by a ‘Dr Byrne’, who had seen my writing and found me on the register. The NMC began an investigation of my fitness to practise, alleging ‘failure to uphold your position as a registered nurse – in that you promoted health advice contrary to official health advice in the context of a global pandemic’.
From the outset, I was confident that the NMC had no reasonable case against me. I submitted my statement, supported by three experts (physician Helen Westwood, biostatistician Paul Cuddin, and nursing professor Roger Watson. Cuddin wrote: ‘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.’
The NMC, overwhelmed with referrals of Covid-19 dissidents, moved slowly. In September 2022 I received a report by two investigators (Velia Soames and Victoria Taylor), who applied 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.’
Apparently, my academic title meant falsely claimed expertise:
‘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.’
They seemed to believe that I am unable to comprehend analysis of medical treatment. Having written almost a hundred peer-reviewed scientific papers, and a manual on systematic literature reviewing, you’d think that I deserve some credit. Moreover, the NMC was belittling its own profession.
The investigators raised ‘underlying problems with your attitude’, asserting that ‘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.’ Although I was polite and cooperative, my perceived arrogance would be ‘hard to remediate’. This is the justice of the Soviet Union, where Gulags were filled with thought criminals who could never be rehabilitated.
‘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 would consult NMC lawyers. Months went by, then years. Eventually in March 2025 I received a letter from the NMC stating that legal advice was not to prosecute. However, the NMC committee would carry on regardless. I was invited to a preliminary hearing, with a full hearing scheduled one month later.
I attended the initial hearing with solicitor Robin Tilbrook. I prepared for my defence, including my argument that if registrants cannot oppose government policy, why isn’t the NMC investigating nurses who walked out of wards on strike?
The hearing went smoothly. The NMC legal advisor stated that there was no public interest in pursuing the case. Tilbrook concurred, emphasising that the NMC should not interfere with my right to free speech. After an adjournment, the chairwoman informed me of the decision to drop the case.
Like other professional bodies, the NMC was corrupted by covid-19. After four years and two months, I was free, but others have been persecuted and ejected from the register, with public shaming. I hope that my case encourages others to stand their ground against the censorial regime.
The post VICTORY! After Four Years and Two Months British Nursing Council Drops Charges Against Dr. Niall McCrae for Publishing His Completely Factual Report on COVID Vaccine Risks on The Gateway Pundit in 2021 appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
