Dr Tom gilhooly vilified over use of low dose naltrexone

1. The allegations and the tribunal outcome

Regulatory action against Dr Gilhooly grew from a 2011 BBC investigation into his offering of a controversial vein‑widening procedure and from concerns about his off‑label prescribing, culminating in misconduct charges heard by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) in 2015; the tribunal found misconduct and reported that Dr Gilhooly told the MPTS he would not again prescribe LDN despite previously championing it ^{[1] [2]}. The MPTS hearing highlighted specific prescribing episodes — including prescribing LDN to a four‑year‑old with autism without documented informed consent discussions — and recorded that he admitted complacency in prescribing and record‑keeping ^{[2] [3]}.

2. What critics focused on: risk, evidence and governance

Critics framed Gilhooly’s practice as emblematic of the hazards when clinicians adopt off‑label or experimental protocols without robust evidence or transparent consent, pointing to the CCSVI vein‑widening therapy for MS and to prescribing LDN and other medicines in ways regulators judged inadequately documented or justified ^{[1] [2]}. The GMC’s presentation to the tribunal argued that his “desire to help patients needs to be kept in check,” a moral character critique that regulators used to explain why oversight was necessary ^[3].

3. The LDN community and professional defenders

At the same time, Gilhooly had a visible role in the LDN community: he organised and presented at conferences, was thanked in case reports for his clinical use of LDN, and was cited in LDN Research Trust materials and conference programs — evidence that a network of patients and clinicians saw practical value in his work and in the drug’s potential ^{[5] [6] [7] [8]}. Representatives who appeared for him told the tribunal he was not campaigning recklessly for LDN or promoting it for profit, suggesting a professional defence that framed his practice as motivated by patient care rather than self‑interest ^[3].

4. Evidence status for LDN: experimental promise, limited trial data

Independent reporting and specialist blogs show LDN as a therapy with some encouraging case reports and small trials in conditions such as fibromyalgia and ME/CFS, but overall the evidence base remains limited and variable; some clinicians experiment with dosing beyond the commonly cited 4.5 mg/day, while formal, large randomized trials are sparse ^{[9] [8]}. This partial evidence landscape helps explain both patient enthusiasm and regulator caution: patients and small research groups see signals worth pursuing, regulators demand higher‑quality data and strict consent for off‑label use ^{[9] [8]}.

5. Verdict on “vilified”: nuance between condemnation and support

Characterising Dr Gilhooly as simply “vilified” oversimplifies a complex picture: he was publicly criticised and found guilty of professional misconduct for aspects of his practice — outcomes that supported regulatory rebuke and media coverage ^{[2] [1]}. Yet within the LDN and patient communities he retained defenders who credited him with clinical innovation and advocacy for research, and he featured in academic case reports and conference programs that acknowledged his contributions ^{[5] [8]}. The record therefore shows both substantive regulatory sanction and a persistent constituency that viewed his work as valuable, not merely scandalous ^{[2] [4]}.

6. Limits of the reporting and unanswered questions

Available sources document the tribunal findings, the BBC investigation, and Gilhooly’s involvement with the LDN community, but they do not provide full clinical outcome data for all his patients nor a comprehensive independent assessment of LDN’s long‑term safety in the protocols he used; therefore definitive claims about harm versus benefit for his entire practice would exceed the published record ^{[2] [8] [9]}.