back to article Doctors call for greater scrutiny of bidders for platform that pools UK's health info

A family doctors' conference has called on the UK's medics union to help scrutinize bidders for the NHS Federated Data Platform (FDP) contract to ensure they have a positive track record on security, privacy and ethics. In London yesterday the BMA's GPs Committee hosted a conference of representatives from England's Local …

  1. Valeyard

    The US data analytics company with links to the CIA and immigration service ICE started working with the NHS during the pandemic, accepting a £1 contract for its initial work, then a £23 million ($28 million) contract without competition

    There is so much to unpack here, how can there be so much dystopia in a single sentence

    1. b0llchit Silver badge
      Black Helicopters

      Cases where contracts do not make sense must be evaluated under the light of who profits? When the answer to this question is not unequivocally the patients and only the patients, then you know who is involved and why(*).

      (*)You know the black helicopters.

      1. Dacarlo helicopters and friends of Tories.

        1. b0llchit Silver badge

          Aren't they one and the same?

    2. M.V. Lipvig Silver badge
      Black Helicopters

      Not to worry, the pills the doctor will be prescribing at your appointment next week will take care of all your fears of the boogieman looking at your records.

      Sincerely, Agent Smith, US CIA

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Talking of dystopia

      The BMA's GPs Committee are too busy advising GPs how to maximise their income, minimise their retirement age, minimise patient interaction and generally profit as much as possible from the dysfunctional NHS to care about patient data.

      I honestly wonder what the BMA's profit motive is in this. They are not an organisation bothered about patients.

  2. Eclectic Man Silver badge


    The question about scrutiny raises the issue of who actually does the scrutinising. We cannot have everyone examining every proposed contract, and the government does get to choose, but in the best procurements, there is always a 'senior user' representative to vet things. The problem with this government (and any government) is that when the minister decides to do something, the nay sayers are generally sidelined or ignored.

    1. ThatOne Silver badge

      Re: Scrunity

      > when the minister decides to do something, the nay sayers are generally sidelined or ignored.

      You can't have the naysayers interfere with a bit of good-hearted all-around backscratching... Lobby money makes the world go round.

    2. Woodnag

      Re: Scurnity

      Palantir have been promised the contract, because US drug industry will get the data as a result.

      Light getting shone on the deal just delays it until it can be granted when no-one is looking.

      There is no accountability.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Scrunity

      Hopefully not MHS digital as they don’t scuitinise anybody connecting to the nhs

  3. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge

    Dear Family Doctors,

    Go fuck yourselves.

    Yours sincerely, NHS England.

    1. Martin Gregorie

      You sound very like a Pantir spokesman or something similar. Did I guess right?

      1. John Smith 19 Gold badge

        "you sound very like a Pantir spokesman"


        He sounds exactly like the attitude of NHS England to people expressing actual concern.

        And he's right. That's exactly their attitude.

        The whole trust-us-NHS-data-is-safe-in-our-hands BS.

        It's not their data.

        It's your data.

        In fact IIRC any reuslts derived from analysing that data (and the profits derived from them) would be a "Derivative work" under copyright law.

        IOW royalties should be paid.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "you sound very like a Pantir spokesman"

          He sounds exactly like the attitude of NHS England

          The trouble with NHS England is that they are deeply and institutionally corrupt.

          An example: many years ago I worked for a small company that had a contract with the DoH, providing an occupational health monitoring system. It was well liked by the OH nurses (they helped develop the feature set), cheap and it worked.

          Then a big health provider, that just happened to have a big system to sell the NHS (part of which did something similar to what ours did) just happen to join the project oversight board - and one of the boards responsibilities was to specify whether to contine with our value-for-money system or to replace it with the bloated, hated-by-nurses system sold by the supplier. The project manager (who we got along with really well) found herself re-assigned to a different project in the middle of her contract (she'd been asking awkward questions during minuted meetings) and one, supplied by the big supplier, came on board (paid for, of course, by the DoH).

          You won't be surprised that our system got 'de-prioritised' (against the wishes of the medical staff on the board) and the suppliers big system got selected.

          The most blatant thing is that the DoH had escrow access to our source code (in case we, as a small company, went under). When we looked at the replacement system some while later, it was clear that elements of our code had been incorporated (badly) into the big system. When we complained we were told that, since we were no longer a supplier, that the DoH had given the big company access to the source code 'for legacy support reasons'.

          Corrupt from the top down.

          And lets not forget the farce that lead to the setting up of NHS Employers - a minister stands up in Parliament and says that they will reduce the DoH headcount. To do that, they span a few thousand admin staff (who mostly worked on staff relations and small projects) out into NHS Employers (and a few other bodies). Their budget still came from the DoH but *from a different budget*. The other kicker - since they were no longer DoH staff, they could no longer mandate spending of the DoH budget - they now had an advisory role on spending. The minister stodd up and said in Parliament that they had hit their goal (of decreasing efficiency, introducing waste, removing budget controllability) of cutting headcount.

          Then, over the next 6 months, the DoH quickly realised that those staff had been there for a reason and quietly built up the headcount again - but not by hiring back in their original staff! So you now had an outsourced body and DoH doing the same thing..

          Just so some ineffective minister could stand up and say that he had hit his spending cuts target on staff.

          Rotten from the top.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "you sound very like a Pantir spokesman"

          "In fact IIRC any reuslts derived from analysing that data (and the profits derived from them) would be a "Derivative work" under copyright law."

          Tell me you've got no idea how copyright works without telling me you've got no idea how copyright works.

          Datasets released by government are usually under crown copyright, which has its own legal provision and impersonal content should normally be licensed under the OGL. As we're dealing with personal data we're outside the realms of copyright and all data exchanges are governed by primary or secondary legislation supported by bespoke data sharing agreements, which together define the scope of the data exchange and any subsequent ownership of resulting works.

      2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        "Did I guess right?"

        No. The clue was the whoosing sound passing over your head :-)|

    2. Dante Alighieri

      missing <sarc>?

      or the correct icon?

      The likelihood of my union* having any effect on this is small.

      *yes I am a member of the BMA, just not in the GP "craft", see posts passim

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: missing <sarc>?

        > The likelihood of my union* having any effect on this is small.


        > *yes I am a member of the BMA, just not in the GP "craft"

        Hmm, I've spent the last several weeks trying to talk to someone at BMA about a related issue that I thought they'd be interested in.

        The BMA issued a statement to GPs on 25th Oct related to NHS England's plans to require the 2 main English GP Practices' electronic patient records vendors to start sharing patient data without the involvement of the Practices which, as BMA correctly pointed out, would be unlawful as only the Practices (as Data Controller of their patients' records) are the only people who can lawfully instruct their Data Processors to share that data (BMA also provided a template letter to that effect for Practices to send to their Data Processors).

        My reason for contacting BMA was that they are currently highlighting a potential (i.e. near future) issue that parallels a pre-existing situation in Northern Ireland where in the Summer of 2013 BSO (a central NI Health Service org) instructed the 3 NI Practice electronic patient records vendors to integrate the records systems of *all* Practices in NI in Summer, so similarly acting unlawfully.

        I got nowhere with BMA Northern Ireland ("nothing to do with us, go talk to the ICO") and I'm awaiting any form of response from BMA HQ in England (almost 3 weeks now since I emailed them, there's allegedly someone looking into it).

        I would have thought if the BMA are so concerned about NHS England's potential actions they would also be concerned about BSO's identical actions in NI. I'm not holding my breath however.

        So yes, the likelyhood of the BMA having any effect on privacy-related issues like this appears inconsistent at best...

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: missing <sarc>?

          I’ve had a much worse experience with the GMC. You know, the body mainly charged with ensuring that people practicing medicine in the UK have a license to do so *in the UK*, and are doing so competently and ethically.

          I presented the GMC with documented evidence that a large overseas company was offering individual medical and treatment advice to *patients in the UK*, from people purporting to be doctors, and who in fact may be doctors, but from countries around the world - the US, Israel, etc with no license to practice here. Or, they may be charlatans, because there’s no *Medical Register* in those countries to look them up on. They do it “over the Internet”, and have written themselves a disclaimer, so apparently it’s fine.

          The company has a physical presence in the UK, located in Harley Street, that’s verifiable.

          The advertising is large-scale, from what I can uncover a minimum budget in the £1M+ range weekly, which corresponds to a business doing many thousands of consultations per week. But because it is targeted over Facebook, nobody can see them doing it. It’s Cambridge Analytica all over again.

          And I showed this evidence, of dozens or even hundreds of named doctors practicing unlicensed medicine in the UK, to the GMC, and you know what they said? Not our problem guv.

          The reason was particularly astonishing. I thought they might say “we can’t touch them, they’re overseas”, but they didn’t.

          They said: we only regulate the doctors who *are* Registered with us. Since these are Unregistered, they are none of our business.

          I asked the GMC if they would act if I set up a *medical* practice in Harley St, calling myself “Doctor AC” offering my scientific diagnosis to patients on treatment for cancer diagnoses, tailored to the medical condition and specific history of individual patients. Just so long as I nowhere claim to have a licence to practice. And I have a statement from them confirming that they “did not have the power to act” in such a case.

          These aren’t doctors prescribing vitamin pills. The conditions they claim to manage include neuroblastoma, fragile cases of type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis, schizophrenia, stage 4 kidney failure, coeliac disease, complex pregnancies. All conditions guaranteed to make the Medical Defense Union stand up and take notice. Except these doctors aren’t covered by any insurance, and can’t be reached to be sued taking responsibility for any errors.

          Any Registered doctors on here, feel absolutely free to contact the Head of Registrations at the GMC directly on the matter, because that is whom I was communicating with, or discuss the wider issue with your colleagues, or publicise it more widely.

          1. Spazturtle Silver badge

            Re: missing <sarc>?

            Of course the GMC can only regulate it's members, it's a private company so it only has powers over people who join it. And it is not illegal in the UK to practice medicine without being a qualified doctor.

            1. schermer

              Re: Software with western components

              Don't you really have something like:

              The only gripe I have with this regulation is their age-related discrimination: it is difficult to be a medical professional once one reach the age of 70 years.

              1. This post has been deleted by its author

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Software with western components

                Yes, we absolutely do have the public medical register online in UK. It is precisely the GMC that administrate it, and directly verify that all the statements in it are true. They check certificates, identity, place of training, qualifications.

                It is, as far as anyone I have ever talked to knows, illegal to practise medicine in the UK if you aren’t on it. And it is common practise, to look up on it the doctor treating you, to understand for example where they trained, when they qualified, what their specialities are, and which extra qualifications they might have, eg MRCP, MRCGP, MRCPsych, MRCOG etc etc. It is definitive and authoritative.

                And now the head of GMC Registration is quietly saying in a private email chain, directly contradicting the explicit statement on their own website, that somehow that is all window-dressing, and anyone can practise medicine in the UK *so long as* they are Unregistered.

                1. Spazturtle Silver badge

                  Re: Software with western components

                  "The GMC maintains a register of medical practitioners. However, no law expressly prohibits any unregistered or unqualified person from practicing most types of medicine or even surgery. A criminal offence is committed only when such a person deliberately and falsely represents himself as being a registered practitioner or as having a medical qualification. The rationale of the criminal law is that people should be free to opt for any form of advice or treatment, however bizarre…"

                  Source: Medicine, Patients and the Law (ISBN: 9780141030203)

                  I've also had a quick skim through the Medical Act 1983 and I can only see penalties for pretending or implying that you are fit to practice medicine.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: Software with western components

                    Indeed the Medical Act 1983 was exactly what the slopey-shouldered Head of GMC pointed to, to get himself off the hook. If, as a regulator of doctoring in the U.K., they don’t actually have the legal power to do so, what is the point of them? More pointedly, he’s the head of a U.K. regulator, not a desk clerk at Hertz shrugging “computer says no”. He’s had decades to address the issue. It’s his *job* to go to government, outline the issue, present a solution, and make it happen.

                    The exact words on the GMC website are, in large title,

                    “Unregistered medical practice is against the law. Doctors practising medicine in the UK must have registration with a licence to practise. It is illegal if they practice medicine without this and is something that we would need to look into.” Apparently this is a simple untruth, intended to deceive the public who haven’t read the Medical Act 1983.

                    I also don’t think either he or you realise just how big this is. This isn’t about a couple of scam doctors on the internet.

                    #1 We have no idea how many unlicensed doctors are currently practising in the U.K. via this mechanism. It’s completely hidden by the power of micro-targeted advertising. It’s enormously unlikely this is the only company, statistically it’s much more likely I stumbled across one of dozens or even hundreds. It’s quite possible that entire very large U.K. communities are now getting the majority of their medical diagnosis and care this way. Maybe, the whole of Stamford Hill, the whole of Bradford, or large parts of London. No way to even guess. The GMC haven’t shown the remotest curiosity to find out.

                    #2 For all we know, the level of harm could be extraordinary. There could be large numbers of deaths, and we would know nothing, because to certify cause of death for burial, you just need to be a *doctor*. The main safeguards brought in after Harold Shipman were via revalidation to *remain a licensed doctor*. If you are an unlicensed doctor, that all disappears.

                    #3 What makes you think this is limited to private medicine? “Classically” NHS hospitals can only hire doctors who physically live within this country, to work. I don’t give a damn where they are born. It seems that restriction for the NHS to hire only GMC-registered doctors is little more than a gentleman’s agreement. To change it, doesn’t require the agreement of government, or NHS England, or even the NHS Trust. The hiring manager can just hire an unlicensed doctor, and the only consequence is the disapproval of their colleagues if they get found out.

                    This is a new world. Today, 30% of all GP consultations are phone calls. It is going to be *far* cheaper to hire a doctor external to the U.K. to do those. There’s no central check of what GP surgeries are doing. If a GP surgery individually contracts out its remote consultations to a company in the Philippines, as long as it does the number of “doctor” consultations it’s contracted to, and meets its audited QOF targets, it gets paid. How would the patients even know? They get phoned back by a GP they don’t know, which is normal for a large practice. And they get a reasonable consultation.

                    Now we know this is *legal*, perhaps this is actually the model for a significant minority of NHS GP practices *today*. Maybe you’ve even had such a GP appointment yourself, and been unaware. Did you check the GP name on the Medical Register? Because from the GMC is saying, the Surgery wouldn’t be doing anything wrong, at all, and therefore has no reason to tell anyone.

                    1. Spazturtle Silver badge

                      Re: Software with western components

                      The GMC is a regulator but they are not a government regulator, they are a private non-profit company.

                      Doctors have long resisted being regulated by the government with the argument being that only other doctors can understand the medical and ethical decisions that doctors have to make and that trying to write them down as laws would inhibit progress.

                      And to add to your example GP's have been caught doing what you say, they have been getting healthcare assistants to call patients back and do the consultation, with the only punishment being loss of reputation.

              3. Claverhouse Silver badge

                Re: Software with western components

                Well, Literature is replete with greatly aged doctors, generally of Scottish origin, who can teach those young whipper-snappers a thing or two; but as the Romans held: Sexagenarios de ponte = 'Sexagenarians Over The Bridge', meaning those over 60 should not vote as too old.

                Something applying well to American politicians and presidents.


                As far as registries are concerned, the profession in the 1900s and early 20th century frequently agitated against those who falsely claimed to be doctors or who sold snake oil.

                Of course that was before the internet.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: missing <sarc>?

              The General Medical Council is a body whose powers and responsibilities are laid down exactly in legislation, and they are non-profit. So, no, they are not just “a private company”. You may be thinking of the BMA, a union that represents its members, or the MDU, one of two main insurance companies.

              I suspect from your tone that you are one of those libertarian types who think “choose any doctor, and if it kills you, that’s on you, mah freedom to choose”.

              Then, “and the horse you came in on.”

              As to whether the Head of GMC is right about the law, and the law is a dangerous ass, yes I suspect he may be right. Then it’s his job to represent and get the law changed. What is the point of the GMC if it is legal to practice medicine unlicensed?

            3. This post has been deleted by its author

            4. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: missing <sarc>?

              This is an exact cut-and-paste from a banner headline on the GMC website:

              “Unregistered medical practice is against the law

              Doctors practising medicine in the UK must have registration with a licence to practise. It is illegal if they practice medicine without this and is something that we would need to look into.”


        2. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

          Re: missing <sarc>?

          Practices (as Data Controller of their patients' records) are the only people who can lawfully instruct their Data Processors to share that data

          The online system that my GP uses for patient access to their medical data has an easy-to-find option to opt out of data sharing with non-NHS parties. In fact, the default is 'not to share' and you have to enable it to share..

          (The lead GP is a tech-savvy guy - unsurprisingly I get on well with him :-) He's also a really, really good GP)

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: missing <sarc>?

          >Practices which, as BMA correctly pointed out, would be unlawful as only the Practices (as Data Controller of their patients' records) are the only people who can lawfully instruct their Data Processors to share that data

          This is only part-true. Compliance with other legislation trumps GDPR. If a law says you are specifically required to hand over some data then that law trumps GDPR every single time. This is explicitly built into GDPR. NHS England require these data to be submitted as part of their central contracts with GP service providers, under a combination of the "Public Task" and "Legal Obligation" purposes defined in the GDPR.

          There will be no mileage in individual GP surgeries trying to decline to cooperate, because they are legally and contractually required to do so. More to the point the data will more likely be acquired directly from the ICSs and CSUs that actually do most of the data processing, or the vendors (EMIS et al) that provide the processing systems.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: missing <sarc>?

            > NHS England require these data to be submitted as part of their central contracts with GP service providers <

            I can only comment on HSC NI (aka NHS Northern Ireland), there is NO requirement in the GMS Contracts (NI) for GP Practices to submit this data. I'm not disagreeing that there may be such a requirement in English GP Contracts.

            > More to the point the data will more likely be acquired directly from the ICSs and CSUs that actually do most of the data processing, or the vendors (EMIS et al) that provide the processing systems. <

            In NI the like of BSO obtaining the data from EMIS/INPS/Merlok would be unlawful as EMIS/INPS/Merlok are Data Processors for the GP Practices and so can only lawful act upon instructions from their Data Controllers (the GPs).

    3. Smeagolberg

      "Go fuck yourselves" is exactly what NHS England (NOT the NHS) is effectively saying to doctors, who are a crucial part of the NHS.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Stop focusing on the ethics of the companies bidding for this. The government will direct the usage of the data however it pleases and has already made legal provision to do so. Focus on the government planning to spend at least four hundred million quid on a new data platform with no business case, user base, demand or plans for real use. Focus on the revolving door between senior members of the government, senior civil servants and the supplier.

    The ethics are a red herring. Palantir will just sign some paper promising - scout's honour - not to do anything dodgy and the government will get to trumpet that as a major win. Meanwhile enough money to build an entirely new general hospital is going to be pissed down the drain.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Lots of data

    The full set of data is probably worth a lot of money. The issue is, as always, who will profit? I'm pretty sure that it won't be patients of the NHS.

    And it's so easy to de-anonymise health data - especially for celebrities. Patient XYZ123 who was moved into intensive care with Covid on 7/4/2020 also had several visits to the clap clinic over the past 15 years.

    1. Dante Alighieri


      Sorry to quote Harry Enfield in the title (UK users need not GIYF)

      £9.6 billion apparently on some website that Bites the hand that feeds IT

  6. BebopWeBop

    Dare I say

    The Reg might try to distinguish between England and the U.K. not that we don’t have problems in the rest of it but they are not the same ones.

  7. iain666

    I'm used to, erm, underestimating my alcohol intake when asked by my GP to avoid being told again what I already know about how it's not really all that healthy.

    To feel compelled to share as little as possible with my GP or any of the rest of the NHS I interact with because I can't trust where that data is going to end up and what will be done with it is just depressing. Privacy or health is not a choice we should be compelled to make.

    1. scrubber

      Negative health outcomes

      The inability to know what happens to anything you tell your health provider inevitably means they have limited or wrong knowledge about you which leads to sub optimal treatments and diagnoses. The people in charge either don't know this or don't care.

  8. Will Godfrey Silver badge

    Two week old fish

    That's what this smells like.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    Surprising how the words "ethics" and money words like "millions" seem to sit comfortably in the same sentence for many.

    Funny though that it are not those who come into my practice...

  10. Pascal Monett Silver badge

    It's that simple

    "it would be for NHS England to come up with a process that commands the trust of the public and the professional alike"

    Given the history of shambolic failures of NHS IT, I doubt any process would be sufficient to command the professional's trust, much less the public.

    I don't live in England, but as soon as I hear the word Palantir outside of the Lord Of The Rings context, my brain is screaming "run !!" inside my head.

    1. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

      Re: It's that simple

      Palantir outside of the Lord Of The Rings context

      It wasn't good in that context either (by LOTR times anyway) given that Sauron had one and would try to brainmelt/puppet/seduce anyone else who used one..

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    so what can I, and maybe you, do?

    So as per the title, what can I usefully do as a lay member of the public to help avert this clusterf**k? If anything. Write to my MP, or my GP, or the BBC or what?

    1. M.V. Lipvig Silver badge

      Re: so what can I, and maybe you, do?

      If you write to them 10,000 times, on a £100 note, you'll get their attention.

      Not really different than getting a US politician's attention, except here it's a $100 note.

      1. captain veg Silver badge

        Re: so what can I, and maybe you, do?

        Er, there is no £100 note.

        But if there were, it would have to be pretty big to write your message 10,000 times on it.


  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Words In The Same Sentence..........A Laugh A Minute.....Or Not!!!!!

    Quote: "....Supplier 'ethics' in the spotlight after Palantir......"

    Ha, ha, ha.....Now I've seen it all.....a sentence with "ethics" and "Palantir" in the same sentence!!!!!

    Next up will be another sentence with "ethics" and "Owen Paterson" in the same sentence........................ can't make this stuff up, can you

  13. Wolfclaw

    watch who leaves the NHS 6 months after the contract has been awarded and then see if they have any input to the decision making !

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    As long as China, Russia, Syria, North Korea and Iran aren't involved in any contracts

    ... and only Western powers have access to the health data of UK citizens then that should be allowed to go ahead without any issues ... cause we all fight for the same side - truth, freedom, democracy, the rule of law and all that good sh*t right?

    After all - the only people who are scared of the powers that be knowing all the intimate information about ourselves must have something to hide ... right?!

    lol - what I find even more funny is that we are the makers of our own doom ...

  15. ecofeco Silver badge


    Why? Are the brown envelopes going to the wrong people?

  16. Paul 87

    As usual the NHS is approaching this arse about face

    They shouldn't be focusing on a single vendor, they should be creating a single standard, akin to an IETF RFC, for data records and let individual companies then produce software that's compatible with the default record standard.

    That standard should include an access control approach to allow data sharing to be controlled by the data subject, and a mandatory API/Reporting approach that lets the data be shared subject to the control restrictions.

    With a single gold standard for the data, the systems can grow and evolve over time, but also be incredibly clear about what can and cannot be ascertained from the data.

    1. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

      They shouldn't be focusing on a single vendor, they should be creating a single standard

      From my (admittedly gin-soaked) memory, there is an international standard for medical data.. ISO lists quite a lot of them (devices, medical information, data transfer etc etc).

      The trouble with those standard is that no-one can make lots of money through vendor lock-in. So our good old DoH, perennial friend of corporations with big hospitality budgets, will want to develop their own to suit our 'special circumstances'[1]. Just like they have done soooo many times before. All of which have been a shining model of ability and usability..

      [1] We want some nice holidays and to be able to retire to join the big company on a £120k non-exec directorship sort of circumstance..

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      >They shouldn't be focusing on a single vendor, they should be creating a single standard

      These standards exist and are defined, but someone still has to build, run and manage the platforms where the implementations of those standards are actually deployed.

  17. Winkypop Silver badge

    At last

    The boner pill adverts will be far more customer centric.

  18. stevor

    Sure, let's have one spot where the satanic Globalists can go, after they take kontrol of the world's "health" to make sure you Komply to their totalitarianism? No thanks.

  19. EnviableOne

    Palantir might get your info, for 50% the TLAs already do

    hate to keep harping on about this but:

    EMIS Health was bought by UnitedHealth Group EMIS's cloud-based patient record system cunningly titled EMIS Web, contains about 50% of GP and community records.

    if your GP app is Patient Acess, this is you and your records

  20. Claverhouse Silver badge

    The Boris Protocol

    Civil service rules determine there should be a six-month gap between civil servants leaving public service and beginning lobbying.

    I thought it used to be 2 years.

  21. FireBurn

    UK or England

    It talks about the UK's health info? But is it actually the UK's or England? Do we need to be worried in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like