Have there been appeals or further regulatory actions in Dr Tom Gilhooly’s case since the 2015 tribunal?
Executive summary
The available reporting shows Dr Tom Gilhooly was found guilty of professional misconduct by a Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) hearing in 2015, principally over prescribing low‑dose naltrexone and other prescribing concerns [1] [2]. Within the material provided there is no subsequent record of an appeal of that tribunal decision or of fresh regulatory sanctions after 2015; the sources do not supply follow‑up documentary evidence of further action [1] [2].
1. The 2015 tribunal ruling and its core findings
In July 2015 the BBC reported that a medical tribunal heard Gilhooly had been “carrying the banner” for low‑dose naltrexone (LDN) and that he had prescribed LDN to a four‑year‑old with autism without properly discussing risks or the unlicensed status of the drug for that condition, findings central to the misconduct case [1]. The tribunal coverage also noted charges including prescribing risperidone to a child and that the case was heard by the MPTS in Manchester [2].
2. Statements attributed to Gilhooly at the hearing
Contemporaneous reporting records that Dr Gilhooly told the tribunal he would never again prescribe LDN and denied campaigning irresponsibly for the drug, a defence recorded in the BBC’s account of the hearing [1]. The LDN Research Trust’s response—saying he had resigned as their medical adviser in November 2013—was also included in the same reporting [1].
3. No documented appeals or regulatory updates in the files supplied
A focused search of the material provided turns up no documented appeal of the MPTS decision, no subsequent disciplinary proceedings, and no later MPTS or General Medical Council (GMC) press releases or case notes that would indicate further regulatory action after 2015 [1] [2]. That absence in these sources means the reporting set at hand does not establish that an appeal or additional sanctions occurred.
4. Post‑2015 public records and potential signals — ambiguous but limited
Some later public‑facing entries reference a Dr Thomas Gilhooly in clinical or administrative roles — for example a 2023 mention of “Dr Thomas Gilhooly, Clinical Director” in an NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde engagement piece [3] — but the provided documents do not connect that item explicitly to the 2015 MPTS case nor do they describe regulatory clearances or reinstatement steps, so such material cannot be read as evidence of appeal outcomes or regulatory resolution without further corroboration [3].
5. What the sources do not allow the reporting to conclude
The supplied sources do not include MPTS outcome documents beyond the 2015 verdict, no GMC registrational history updates, no court filings, and no published appeal judgments; therefore it is not possible from this set of reporting to assert affirmatively that there were no appeals or further sanctions, only that none are documented here [1] [2] [3]. Public databases such as Companies House and various profile pages appear in the corpus but do not supply disciplinary records or appeal documentation relevant to the 2015 tribunal [4] [5].
6. Paths to confirm (and where reporting can fall short)
To resolve the question definitively requires consulting primary regulatory records: the MPTS/GMC case database and any court records if an appeal to a civil court was launched, plus Freedom of Information or press office replies from the GMC or MPTS; those sources were not included in the pack provided and therefore could not be cited here (no source). Alternative views would point out that absence of later reporting in mainstream outlets does not prove an appeal never occurred, only that the supplied reporting contains no record of one.