Bad Medicine I: The Sickening Truth About Britain’s Foreign ‘Doctors’

Manish Shah: Charged with 118 sexual crimes against his patients

An Essex-based family doctor of Indian origin, Manish Shah, has gone on trial in London charged with 118 sexual offences against 54 of his patients, one of whom was under 13 at the time of Shah’s alleged predations. Although the sordid details of the accusations against Shah are yet to fully emerge, we know that the former general practitioner has been charged by the police and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) with 65 counts of assault by penetration, 52 counts of sexual assault and one of sexual assault of a child.

The case is headline news in the UK, where the number of charges is so staggering that the media has been forced to take notice. Quite predictably, however, the mainstream press has refused to contextualize this horrific case within an increasingly apparent ethnic context, and coverage thus far has been dominated by bland descriptions of Shah as a “London doctor” or “Romford doctor.”

In the following essay I want to break the taboo on critique of foreign physicians by analyzing the promotion of foreign doctors in multicultural propaganda, and then offering a counter-narrative of the reality behind the lies  – a disturbing record of mass sexual abuse, malpractice, and gross incompetence. Reaching beyond the merely anecdotal, my source material for the latter exploration will be the publicly available records and decisions of Britain’s Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS). As the public body most responsible for protecting the public from bad physicians (by stripping them of license to practice), the records of the MPTS should be considered more reliable and complete than police and CPS statistics concerning the disturbing, and growing, problem of foreign doctors in Britain.

In the third chapter of his recently published The Strange Death of Europe, Douglas Murray lists a number of excuses or lies that have duped European populations into believing that multiculturalism shouldn’t be resisted. These are grouped under the headings ‘Economic,’ ‘An Ageing Population,’ ‘Diversity,’ and ‘The Idea that Immigration is Unstoppable Because of Globalisation.’ Although perhaps implied under economic considerations, Murray failed to significantly explore the often absurd justifications for multiculturalism offered in the name of national infrastructure or public services. This is particularly important because the British people are frequently informed that immigrants are crucial to the smooth functioning of their health service. (Murray does tackle another aspect of this myth by pointing to the fact that Britain’s financially exhausted health service spends more than £20 million every year just on translation services for foreign-born patients.^[1])

Perhaps because the British have placed a high value on their public services, the nation’s elites have historically baited the multicultural hook using precisely this lure. The ‘public services’ excuse goes right back to the origins of multicultural Britain. The first major waves of non-White migrants to Britain (late 1940s–early 1950s) occurred amidst widespread, and largely manufactured, discussion of labor shortages and fears that Britain’s public services (particularly its transport system) would fail without an influx of foreign workers. Even if some elements in the political establishment were genuinely convinced of the need to fill these phantom labor shortages, government investigations into the new Afro-Caribbean population revealed that such notions were grossly misjudged. In one report, completed in December 1953, civil servants stated that the new Black population found it difficult to secure employment because the newcomers had “low output” and their working life was marked by “irresponsibility, quarrelsomeness, and lack of discipline.” Black women were “slow mentally,” and Black men were “more volatile in temperament than white workers … more easily provoked to violence … lacking in stamina,” and generally “not up to the standards required by British employers.”^[2] Despite such facts and admonitions, Britons, and their counterparts in much of the rest of Europe, continued to permit mass influxes of foreigners in the deluded belief that stemming such the flow would cause their nation to grind to a halt.

As with the creation of the ‘race relations’ industry, and the development of ‘hate crime’ legislation, much of the propaganda underpinning this myth can be traced to democratically unaccountable ‘think tanks.’ For example, in 2014 the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) published a report stating that 26% of British doctors had been born abroad and warning that immigration reform would mean “many NHS services would struggle to provide effective care to their patients.” Last year, in the wake of the Brexit vote, IPPR published another ‘study’ in which it made the stronger claim that the National Health Service would “collapse” without immigrant medical professionals. The document demanded a waiver of fees, and outrageously argued that immigrant physicians shouldn’t have to sit English language tests, or fulfil residency requirements. Staff rosters for IPPR reveal a predictable motley of ethnics, Jews, and upper-middle class White urbanite ‘progressives,’ while a perusal of its funding sources uncovers the less than shocking revelation that one of IPPR’s largest donors is George Soros’s Open Society Foundation. Although this form of mass migration promotion has hitherto been most prominent in Britain, I’ve noticed that efforts to persuade Americans of the need to permit an influx of foreign physicians have begun.

Pro-immigrant propaganda aside, it is true that Britain has allowed itself to become dependent on foreign doctors. This dependency is due to a confluence of factors. The nation has inexplicably failed to devote the time and resources to training sufficient numbers of ethnic Britons at its world-class universities, while simultaneously setting meagre immigration standards for medical graduates from dubious Third World institutions. Disastrously, at the same time, it has permitted unprecedented levels of mass migration and has thus endured the resultant, and entirely unnatural, swelling of its population. This has unsurprisingly placed an enormous strain on public services. Rather than tackle the root cause of public service failings — mass immigration and the multicultural project — the government has poured more fuel on the fire. It aims to solve a disaster caused by the mass importation of foreigners by importing yet more foreigners.

The most recent government statistics indicate that around 15% of practicing doctors in Britain have been imported from South Asia (India and Pakistan) and Africa. A further 9.8% were admitted from other countries in the European Union, bringing the total proportion of non-British doctors to around 25%. This alarming figure is considerably more unsettling when placed in the context of malpractice, incompetence, and abuse. During the last 12 months a total of 281 decisions on cases of serious complaint were reached the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS), which, together with the General Medical Council (GMC), is responsible for registering, disciplining, and ‘striking off’ dangerous physicians working in Britain. Ignored by the mainstream media, I took it upon myself to conduct an analysis of the MPTS’s list of tribunal decisions — an analysis which revealed that non-British doctors (25% of the total) are responsible for at least 80% of tribunal cases, the vast majority of them bearing Muslim, South Asian, or African names (interestingly, Jewish physicians are also over-represented relative to their share of the UK population). We thus appear to have found ourselves in the all-too familiar position of attempting to fill manufactured labour shortages with brutes and inadequates. As we move through some of the more notable tribunal cases, keep in mind that they are from the last 12 months alone.

Kwame Somuah-Boateng: “Sex with me will help cure you.”

Deeper research on MPTS’s list of names reveals that the NHS has developed within its body of senior physicians a class of foreign sexual deviants. In one particularly repugnant example, African import, and urologist, Kwame Somuah-Boateng told one of his patients (suffering from Multiple Sclerosis) that sex with him would help cure her illness. The Telegraph reported: “The 43-year-old doctor told the woman that intercourse with him would stimulate the muscles in her legs and had sex with her in his hospital sleeping quarters saying: ‘Trust me I’m a doctor — it will help you to get your sensitivity back.’ He claimed having sex would help her ‘regain the feelings in her vagina’ and would ‘help her pelvic floor muscles because they were weak.’ He said it would help her ‘to feel normal — feel like a woman.’”

Another African, Adewale Lawrence, working as a doctor at a Lancashire hospital, is currently suspended but appallingly remains on the medical register despite dismissing his “sexually-motivated” harassment of a female junior doctor as merely “the African way.”

Britain’s female patients may well need to become accustomed to the ‘African way,’ but problems are not limited to physicians from that continent. Similar explanations for the sexual harassment of six female co-workers were offered by the Indian Dr Shiv Bagchi, who explained that he “had bachelor blood” when challenged on his behavior, which included groping medical students while telling them that he “gets urges like any man.”

Shiv Bagchi: “I get urges like any man.”

Further sexual abuse is in evidence in the case of Chizoba Christopher Uzoh, a Runcorn ‘family doctor’ who used classified patient records to obtain the cell phone number and home address of a female patient. Uzoh then “bombarded” the patient with “sexually motivated” messages. In an indictment of the tribunal process, this African pervert received a mere 12-month suspension and will soon have access to patients once more. A more assertive response was thankfully found in the erasure from the medical register of the Indian surgeon Sachiendra Amaragiri, who used medical records to obtain the home address of an anxious and depressed patient, to whom he subsequently sent a “love letter.”  Also struck off from the register was Ganeshmoorthi Arunachalam, who engaged in the persistent sexual harassment of two White female colleagues.

Prison sentences have sometimes followed. Zimbabwean family doctor Maxman Tembo sexually assaulted four female patients at his Liverpool clinic before he was struck off and given a suspended prison sentence. Heart surgeon Mohamed Amrani was struck off after a series of rapes and sexual assaults on his patients, while Mohammad Haq, a family doctor employed in Scotland, was struck off and sent to prison for fondling the breasts of a teenage girl and three other female patients. In a particularly horrific case, Indian consultant Pradeep Agarwal was struck off after it was reported that he had observed his unaccompanied female patients undressing before performing entirely unnecessary, painful, and intimate examinations. According to tribunal records these involved the entirely unnecessary digital penetration of one patient’s vagina and simultaneous penetration of her anus with a scope — all for Agarwal’s own perverted gratification.

Mohammad Haq

One of the most disturbing aspects of my analysis of the tribunal records was the number of foreign sexual deviants who were permitted to remain on the medical register or were restored to it following brief suspensions, and thus have continued access to patients. For example, Pakistani Riaz Raza is allowed to practice medicine unconditionally despite a history of sexual misconduct involving the inappropriate touching of female patients. African gynaecologist Olumide Yusuff has ongoing access to patients despite a history of clinical errors and the sexually motivated harassment of female colleagues. Pakistani Shah Said Shah currently has access to patients following the conclusion of his nine month suspension for “inappropriate and sexually motivated access to medical records and communication with a patient between September 2014 and November 2014. … In December 2015, the panel found Dr Shah’s fitness to practice to be impaired by reason of his misconduct. The panel considered that Dr Shah’s actions constituted “grooming” of a vulnerable patient and were sexually motivated.”

Indian psychologist Shekhar Chandra remains on the medical register despite grooming and engaging in sex with a mentally ill patient who subsequently took a drug overdose. Nigerian Babatunde Aranmolate has inexplicably been restored to the medical register despite a previous suspension for “working whilst suspended, inaccurate completion of application forms, sexually motivated behaviour towards three women in the course of your work (causing them all real and significant distress), inaccurate completion of three GMC Employer Details Forms, inaccurate information on a CV and the writing of a prescription for a family member using a prescription pad retained from your previous employment.” Another African, Xavier Mmono, has now been restored to the medical register following a brief suspension for “groping a patient’s breasts, conducting intimate examinations of her without a chaperone present, asking her to touch his ‘d***’, and sending her sexually suggestive text messages.”

Xavier Mmono: “Touch my d***”

Indian, Pakistani, African, and Arab doctors have also been heavily implicated in the sexual abuse of female staff, medical students, and other vulnerable employees or volunteers within the National Health Service. Indian surgeon Pogolu Prasad received just a six-month suspension for the unwanted touching and repeated sexual harassment of one of his medical assistants. Another Indian, Vinesh Naraya, received a nine-month suspension for sexually motivated texts and inappropriate communications with three female medical students under his supervision. Egyptian Alaa Abdel-Rahman is now able to practice medicine in Britain despite a conviction for making a young female medical student unnecessarily remove all clothing from the upper half of her body for an unsupervised “breast examination.” In a similar case, another Egyptian, Nooman Ahmed, has had his suspension revoked and once more has access to patients, despite inciting a seventeen-year-old girl on work experience at his clinic to submit to a ‘chest examination’ demonstration, during which he fondled her breasts for his own sexual gratification. The Nigerian Enyinnaya Anosike will have access to patients in a matter of weeks, when his 12-month suspension expires. He had been suspended for the sexually motivated touching of three female colleagues.

It is clear that the health and well-being of patients is being placed in danger by leaving them in the hands of poorly trained, deviant, and often unstable individuals who are poorly vetted and have cultural and ethnic backgrounds which render them wholly unsuitable for the work in which they are employed. The country’s disciplinary bodies are also becoming increasingly lax, especially in cases involving foreign physicians. The needs of patients, and often the most vulnerable of them, appear secondary to the ‘need’ to permit the ongoing and untroubled influx of these ‘essential’ public service workers. That leniency has reached unthinkable levels should have been apparent in the Daily Mail’s report that “The number of doctors licensed despite convictions or cautions for sex and child pornography offences has almost trebled since 2007.”

One wonders how many patients will be assaulted or killed before the problem is acknowledged and dealt with. What is not in doubt is that millions of British patients are at very real risk from the cadre of poorly trained and poorly vetted Third World imports now staffing a staggering proportion of UK medical facilities. How comforted should Britons be about the future of their health service while female African psychiatrist Temitope Oluwagbemisola Ademola remains on the medical register despite attacking one of her patients in a ward of a Scottish hospital, “kicking her on the body and covering her mouth to stop her breathing”? How much of a healthy doctor-patient relationship can be established when the cultural divides are such that the supposedly ‘integrated’ Pakistani heart doctor Gohar Rahman received a criminal conviction for assault with a weapon, stemming from the severe beating of his daughter for going to a sleep-over at a friend’s house and thus “shaming” the family? Rahman, whose views on women appear to be in line with those of the Taliban, remains on the British medical register and continues to be paid by the British government to treat patients.

Gohar Rahman: Beat his daughter with a staff and called her a ‘whore’ and ‘prostitute’ for having a sleepover with friends.

Foreign doctors have also been responsible for a growing number of deaths and mutilations due to gross negligence and incompetence. It is truly remarkable that Nigerian Hazida Bawa-Garba remains on the medical register, having received a mere 12-month suspension for causing the death of a six-year-old boy through gross negligence. Indian Zubair Bajwa remains on the register unconditionally despite being responsible for the death of a gallbladder patient who succumbed to cardiac arrest as a result of internal bleeding which Bajwa failed to detect despite multiple examinations. In another case, the Pakistani Nadeem Azeez was responsible for the death of a 30-year-old teacher following a botched Caesarean section. African Lawal Haruna was struck off after a succession of surgical catastrophes which included removing healthy ovaries, fallopian tubes, and even a pad of fat, all of which he had mistaken for the appendix. Raghavan Kadalraja, who had been working at Bedford Hospital as a consultant pediatrician since 2006, was struck off after repeatedly failing to provide even the most elementary care and diagnoses to four children. In two notable instances Kadalraja was found sitting in his office ‘eating breakfast’ when he should have been attending to a three-week-old baby with severe fever and a nine-year-old with developmental problems who was having a seizure. Others are shown inexplicable leniency, such as the lazy African pediatrician Chinedu Bosah, who was given a 12 month suspension for leaving newborn babies with junior doctors and medical students so that he could take “unauthorized naps” and sudden absences spanning days.

It is a matter of documented fact that foreign doctors from India and Africa are responsible for more than 90% of tribunal cases involving incompetence. The details from some of these cases are stunning. For example, Indian junior doctor Sripathy Subramanian was struck off the medical register after it was discovered at one hospital that he was so lacking in basic skills that he “did not recognise that one patient had normal breathing,” and was unable to name any major bones or arteries. Another Indian, Vasudha Mashankar, was struck off after causing the death of a young boy by failing to identify an intracranial bleed. Nigerian gynecologist Benjamin Ogbonna botched his handling of six patients in such a fashion that he was struck off for having “an old fashioned approach to medicine; making premature judgements, overlooking relevant matters, and a persistent pattern of deficient professional performance.”

These are the people our governments tell us will solve the problem of our ageing society by ‘caring for us’ as we get older and more infirm.

Khashayar Ghaharian: “The patients are fuckers…they’re pieces of shit.”

If the rampant sexual abuse and gross negligence weren’t clear enough indications of the contempt with which British patients and female staff are regarded by these intruders, some foreign physicians have made it even more obvious. Iranian Khashayar Ghaharian was struck off the medical register after a litany of abuses which included referring to his patients as “fuckers” and “pieces of shit,” his receptionists as “cockroaches” and “fat blobs,” and engaging in unwanted discussions of a sexual nature with staff. Others appear to be fully cognizant of the fact they live among the hopelessly ‘tolerant,’ and have cynically attempted to further abuse the systems of political correctness for their own ends. For example, Pakistani ophthalmologist Farhan Zaidi was given a brief suspension for making 99 claims of race discrimination against 15 different NHS trusts (during a ten-month period) in an effort the medical tribunal concluded was “intended to elicit unwarranted financial reward.”

In the aftermath of Charlottesville, Esther Choo, an Asian doctor at Portland’s Oregon Health & Science University, received mass media attention for her claims that there were a lot of “white nationalists” in her state and that a few times a year “a patient in the emergency room would refuse to be seen by her because of her race.” Leftist journalists throughout the West spilled a great deal of ink in apparent disbelief at such an occurrence. I believed Choo instinctively because on two occasions I, along with my wife, have refused care from a non-White doctor. These occasions were the births of my two sons. On the first occasion we were confronted with an individual who bore the closest resemblance to Osama Bin Laden I’ve seen anywhere. On the second occasion we were presented with a sub-Saharan African. Far from being explosive affairs, we calmly articulated our insistence that she be examined and treated by a “domestically-trained doctor,” a subtle request which avoided serious drama and was acted upon surprisingly well.

While the media would like to portray such instances as irrational examples of the grossest bigotry, my position remains that a rejection of care from foreign elements is morally, intellectually, and factually defensible. Indeed, as we’ve seen, the records of the British medical tribunals indicate that sticking to a preference for White doctors will radically reduce one’s likelihood of sexual abuse, mutilation, and death.

Go to Part 2.

^[1] D. Murray, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam (London: Bloomsbury, 2017), p.39.

^[2] K. Paul, Whitewashing Britain: Race and Citizenship in the Postwar Era (Cornell University Press, 1997), p.134.