Doctor Who Spoke out Against COVID-19 Vaccines Faces Being Struck Off for Misconduct

GP David Cartland said he was targeted by 77th Brigade accounts in strident online debates, with his barrister warning history could ‘prove him right’ on jabs.

GP Dr. David Cartland in an undated selfie photo. Courtesy Dr. David Cartland

The employment tribunal of a doctor who became an outspoken critic of the COVID-19 jabs heard that he felt he had a moral duty to warn people of the vaccine damage he was seeing in his patients.

GP David Cartland, from Cornwall, faces being struck off after a panel decided on Thursday the charges of professional misconduct and dishonesty brought against him by the General Medical Council were proven.

The charges of misconduct relate to online spats he had with two high-profile pro-vaccine doctors—one a TV medic—and one scientist who Cartland and others have accused of leading an online front group for the 77th Brigade, the British Army’s so-called “disinformation unit.”

The three individuals made complaints against Cartland to the GMC, while two also contacted his employers, leaving it difficult for the GP to find work, the tribunal heard.

There has never been a patient complaint about Cartland and his barrister Paul Diamond described him as “an excellent doctor” as he asked for clemency as the panel considers whether his fitness to practise medicine is impaired through his behaviour.

Cartland chose not to give evidence to the hearing in Manchester, which he has described as a “kangaroo court,” after it granted anonymity to the three complainants as “vulnerable witnesses” but would not grant him the same status, although he said he and his family have been threatened and harassed by trolls.

The panel decided the charge of dishonesty against him was proven after he admitted offering to provide an “agent provocateur” with a letter of medical exemption, after the individual said he did not want the COVID-19 jabs but wished to travel to the United States at a time when the unvaccinated were being denied entry.

While their evidence was given behind closed doors, the public section of the hearing established that Dr. B is a TV doctor who promoted the jabs as safe for children, and Dr. A is a senior obstetrician who led a programme encouraging pregnant women to get vaccinated. Dr. C was described as “a PhD and a farmer” who engaged in frequent “robust” online combat with people questioning the vaccines.

‘Organised Troll Operation’

Read through his barrister, Cartland’s statement to the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) said he believed he was targeted by an organised online operation of trolls who “swarmed” to his posts after he began questioning the official narrative around the vaccines.

The tribunal heard some of the more robust exchanges between Cartland, who currently has almost 300,000 followers on social media platform X, and the three complainants. He was found to have encouraged his followers to pile onto them, although his barrister stressed this was not a “one-way street” and that both Dr. B and Dr. C had engaged in similar tactics.

Thomas Moran, counsel for the GMC, said some of Cartland’s comments amounted to “rank abuse and harassment,” and that in an exchange with Dr. A, Cartland had urged his followers to “show her some love” and referred to “all the babies and mums she has inflicted spike proteins upon.”

The tribunal heard that Dr. B has taken separate, civil litigation against Cartland after the latter made references to wanting to protect children from paedophilia, allegedly in reference to Dr. B, although he did not explicitly name him. Cartland apologised to Dr. B and was made to pay compensation to settle a lawsuit, and has accused the TV doctor of engaging in “litigation warfare” against him.

Moran said that Dr. C was himself “combative” on social media in tackling what he regarded as “misinformation,” and had used some choice expletives in his exchanges with Cartland.

A protester holds up a placard at a demonstration against vaccinations and government restrictions in London on Oct. 17, 2020. Justin Tallis/AFP via Getty Images

‘Sheep’ References Stem From ‘Mutton Crew’

In his posts, Dr. C makes frequent jocular references to sheep, Diamond told the tribunal, giving credence to Cartland’s theory that the scientist was the leader of the so-called “Mutton Crew,” suspected of being a front for the 77th Brigade.

This online outfit is known to have engaged in psychological warfare with the British public and particularly with anyone of high profile or professional credibility who questioned the official narrative around the jabs.

Cartland admitted setting up a parody account in Dr. C’s name, but his barrister said in mitigation that multiple fake accounts had been set up in his name, and had been the source of many abusive memes, and he believed—rightly or wrongly—that the scientist was coordinating this.

Diamond said that Cartland’s “poor behaviour” on social media had not been “one-way traffic,” and that both Dr. B and Dr. C encouraged their own large followings to pile onto him.  Cartland said he has had to involve the police after receiving death threats from followers of the complainants, and that he was “doxxed” and told that his children were being “watched.”

The barrister told the tribunal that his client felt it was his “moral duty to uphold bodily autonomy,” and that the offer to provide a vaccine exemption had not been made for financial gain. Cartland admitted writing letters for a handful of his patients who did not wish to take the vaccines.

Parallels to Infected Blood Scandal

Diamond drew parallels between the way whistleblowing doctors had been treated for raising the alarm about the infected blood scandal and the “silencing” of dissenting medics like Cartland who had seen vaccine-injured patients in their surgeries.

The barrister said that the inquiry into the blood products scandal had revealed a number of doctors who spoke out during the 1970s and 1980s had been reported to the GMC for going against the grain, with the truth taking decades to emerge.

“We are creatures of the zeitgeist, we are creatures of our time,” the barrister said, adding that it was vital to allow dissenting doctors to speak out where their opinion differs from the consensus.

Campaigners - including many who are personally affected - protesting outside the Infected Blood Inquiry in London on July 26, 2023. Victoria Jones/PA Wire

Cartland had initially trusted the vaccines enough to take two of them, but said his opinion changed when many of his patients were presenting with apparent vaccine damage, the tribunal heard.

Referring to some of the more offensive-sounding posts made by the GP, Diamond said that while his client had “clearly been under stress and acted badly,” the posts had been read out to the panel without context.

The GP, who graduated from Birmingham University medical school in 2008 having previously gained a degree in biomedical science, which included the study of immunology and virology, said that having researched the Pfizer data, he understood that pregnant women had been excluded from the vaccine trials.

Cartland said he had never previously been an “anti-vaxxer,” but understood that the mRNA jabs used a different technology to traditional jabs, and therefore he felt bound to dissuade expectant mothers from taking them.

This was the source of his online spats with Dr. A, who he said had contacted his business partner with “untrue and libelous allegations” against him, which had a negative effect on his private online practice. He resigned from his NHS role on the day his surgery began vaccinating children.

No Patient Complaints

Diamond said that his client was being “silenced” through the professional codes of conduct because his medical opinion differed from the official narrative.

“No patients complained about him. Doctors had to complain about him because they [the GMC] couldn’t find a patient to complain about him,” the barrister said.

His barrister argued that the case against Cartland amounted to “a free speech issue ... this case arises from his COVID views, no matter how poorly he might have expressed himself,” adding that the prevention of harassment act was never intended to shut down fundamental rights to freedom of expression.

Diamond argued that if Cartland is struck off, “millions of others could lose their jobs because of something they said on social media,” adding that the GP was not acting in his professional capacity when engaged in online arguments, but as “a private individual, entitled to his point of view.”

“This is a minefield, and they have got it wrong at the GMC,” Diamond concluded, asking for clemency for his client, who is married with a young family.

After it was announced that all charges against him were proven, Moran said that the GMC had found Cartland was “fixated on the complainants, is unrepentant, lacks remorse and insight.”

Moran added that the GP had continued with his online behaviour despite receiving “clear signals to stop” from the professional body.

Although there were ongoing civil proceedings from Dr. B’s lawyer, Cartland had continued to post about the TV doctor, referring to him as “an attention seeking narc,” among other things, the panel heard.

The GMC said he “would have endangered public health” by providing vaccine exemption letters, if the agent provocateur had been a real person and had flown to the United States unvaccinated.

When he was interviewed by the regulatory body, Cartland said he believed he had lost his career because of “big pharma shills” and not because of his own actions, Moran said.

‘A Bear Pit’

Cartland’s statement pointed to the fact that numerous media articles have been written about the activities of the 77th Brigade, adding that one of its purposes appeared to be to provoke a reaction from the targeted individuals and then record this in order to discredit them.

In January 2023, the Conservative government confirmed that it had monitored lockdown and vaccine critics, including MPs, scientists, doctors and journalists, on social media platforms via its Counter-Disinformation Unit and other similar outfits.

Diamond said that history would ultimately be the judge of Cartland.

“He may well be proved right ... it may well turn out that some of the vaccine injuries and problems may come home to roost,” he said, adding that the AstraZeneca vaccine has been withdrawn from use and is the subject of litigation.

Asking that Cartland be allowed to remain on the register of approved doctors, Diamond said he had begun warning patients because “he was an honest, good doctor ... in some ways, he got it wrong. He had a big mouth, but it’s an honest big mouth.”

Diamond added that his client had got “too sucked into the world of social media,” partly because he couldn’t get regular work and had time on his hands, and could benefit from training in this area, rather than being struck off.

“He accepts himself, he is too addicted to this [social media] ... he knows he needs to stay off it.”

If he is struck off next week, Cartland may have grounds for appeal, Diamond indicated, because the GMC has chosen to go down the route of using the protection from harassment act, and his client has not been convicted of a crime.

The panel is expected to announce its decision on Cartland’s fitness to practise next week.