Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me
Optical Express Ruined My Life - Discuss...

TOPIC: Dr Kanackal Alex George

Remember Hazel Jones 30 Dec 2017 04:11 #21

Alex George wrote:
My condolences for Hazel. As I said earlier death and Suicide are never the objectives of any surgery
I find your reply offensive and completely deluded.Hazel did not commit suicide, Hazel died of a stroke, brought on by stress, and boy did you put her under stress. Just the manner of your reply to my message shows the uncaring nature of you and Optical Express.

Remember Hazel Jones 29 Dec 2017 22:47 #22

  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous's Avatar
Hazel went back to optical express on numerous occasions because of her sore eyes,flashing lights,floaters and headaches.They just kept telling her wait it will improve. Well it didn't, her conditions got worse and worse ,as they didn't do anything to remedy this the only action Hazel felt she could take was legal.It was optical express' who should have got in touch with you to try and find a solution.Indeed miraculously after Hazel started legal action you Mr George phoned her at home to offer another operation. How do I know this,because I was on the other end of the phone with her.
Which contradicts what you say about post op everything OK. If so why would you offer another operation. She declined your offer because she lost trust in you.

Dr Kanackal Alex George 29 Dec 2017 20:11 #23

  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous's Avatar
Mr George you are deluded if you think it is acceptable for just one person to be operated on unsuccessfully let alone the thousands that are suffering through this unregulated procedure. Hazel Jones did not commit suicide. She died from a stroke and being a very healthy women all of us who knew her well have no doubt this was caused from the stress you inflicted on her by butchering her eyes knowing she wasn't suited to this operation.
Kayleigh Marlow

Dr Kanackal Alex George 29 Dec 2017 18:07 #24

  • Alex George
  • Alex George's Avatar
Surgery is 50% of success. Neuroadaptation is the remaining 50%
If you haven’t come across it either by being told at the preop stage or in the course of your essential research and your Consent form then your preparation for surgery was deficient.
That is the bottom line.

You ranting is immaterial because I don’t see much change in the numbers walking through the door for surgery in the last 5 or so years. I am not here to defend Refractive surgery because I don’t need to. I will treat patients who come to me for it. Period. But I shall continue to improve my surgical practice and procedures.

My only purpose to write in this web site was my disagreement with Sasha Rodoy which will now be decided legally. You or anyone else has no role in it whatsoever.

Dr Kanackal Alex George 29 Dec 2017 12:31 #25

Well, Alex George, after your latest round of comments I'm not really sure where to start, but it is clear to me (& anyone else I expect who has read them) that you must have some sort of mental health issue that you should be getting professional help with & if any of the patients you are scheduled to operate on read said comments prior to you operating on them, I'd bet they'd run out of the clinic screaming!

Alex George wrote:
And your web site. It only portrays dire doom and gloom so sabotages the results of refractive surgery in some gullible patients.
The truth is that it is well known, thanks to Sasha/OERML, that people like yourself & countless others in the UK refractive eye surgery industry flat out LIE to patients that their eyes are ok after ops when they complain about problems they are suffering, and they are also told that their eyes are ok as long as they can see 20/20 on the eye chart despite them having issues that can include starbursts, ghosting, haloes, poor night vision & serious dry eye pain!

Also, patients reading OERML do not have their results sabotaged, but in fact learn the truth about what you & all the other eye butchers like you have done to their eyes & they can read posts from fellow damaged patients who are in the same position, realising that they are not rare cases as many of them are told at follow up appointments!

Your response to Robert Marlow’s post yesterday about his partner Hazel Jones is absolutely sickening!

Alex George wrote:
My job is done here. My days are quite busy and I have spent more time today on this web site than I can spare.
Do your research and only come forward for it if you understand your responsibilities that you have a 50% role in making it a success. Go down the litigation route and you will be abandoned.

It would be better if you spent ALL your allocated surgery time on this website, because at least you wouldn't have the time to continue performing surgeries that ruin patients eyes & lives?

And when exactly are prospective patients informed by yourself, OE, or anyone else in this industry that they have 50% responsibility for the success of their ops? Is this on any clinic website, literature, pre-op assessment documents, or even the CONSENT FORM itself? No it damn well isn't as you know for a fact, yet you like ALL the other psychopaths in this industry are putting the blame for your misdeeds onto the very patients that you have shamelessly & knowingly damaged by performing elective surgical procedures on them with the priority being monetary gain & not patient safety!

Warning damaged patients that they will be abandoned if they litigate is a threat I expect Sasha’s patrons in the Labour Party will soon be hearing about.

You say that Sasha's campaign will not succeed, but it will succeed & has exposed people like yourself for what they really are, as well as the whole refractive eye surgery scandal that would have continued unchallenged & unreported if it wasn't for her deciding to take a stand & do something about this!

Paul Hogg 29 Dec 2017 07:43 #26

  • Duck Hunter
  • Duck Hunter's Avatar

Dr Kanackal Alex George 28 Dec 2017 23:31 #27

  • Alex George
  • Alex George's Avatar
My job is done here. My days are quite busy and I have spent more time today on this web site than I can spare.

Those who think it is open season on Surgeons need to know that this Duck will shoot back.

Refractive Surgery is totally one of choice. Do your research and only come forward for it if you understand your responsibilities that you have a 50% role in making it a success. Go down the litigation route and you will be abandoned.

Sasha Rodoy, thank you for posting my messages verbatim. Thank you for your honesty and I hope you are open minded enough to understand the destructive path you are following in depriving the public of a balanced view on Refractive Surgery. Your campaign will not succeed. Do some honest work instead.

Remember Hazel Jones 28 Dec 2017 23:17 #28

  • Alex George
  • Alex George's Avatar
My condolences for Hazel. As I said earlier death and Suicide are never the objectives of any surgery

Unfortunately, Robert Marlow, you may ‘feel’ whoever is responsible for Hazel’s demise but feelings need to be evidence based and needs to be scientifically analysed to come to a right conclusion. Feelings are empirical. Paul Holmes may have also felt ‘damaged’ but medical and judicial evidence did not uphold his ‘feeling’.

I did not meet Hazel after the date of her surgeries and only came to know of her when she commenced litigation. Of course once litigation is commenced upon I cannot intervene but I do remember that her refraction post op was satisfactory. She did have symptoms of floaters but there are solutions to that and we regularly sort out patients with them. I do not know if Hazel took the litigation course after reading the ‘doom and gloom’ portrayed in the OERML site but I am reasonably convinced that Paul Holmes did and was influenced by the Stephanie Holloway pay out. Neither Paul Holmes nor Hazel demanded to see me after the dates of their surgeries. They both chose the litigation route when they both had signed in their Consent forms that further procedures may be required.

I had agreed to meet Hazel’s family but Sasha Rodoy first needed to apologise and make amends for her libellous propagation of lies against me. My one month grace period given to her is over now I shall now commence civil proceedings. Her web site is a travesty, jeopardising the results of my surgery and her political patrons need to be made aware of the detriment she and her web site poses to the public.

Dr Kanackal Alex George 28 Dec 2017 22:46 #29

  • Alex George
  • Alex George's Avatar
Mr Starburst, I am not implying anything. My language is clear and you don’t need to over analyse what I wrote. Every surgery has complications that is a medical fact. Refractive surgery is elective so it is imperative that patients research well but when they sign the Consent form they need to uphold what they sign for. BTW, did you demand to see your Surgeon before surgery?

My description of my surgery is not mine. It is in the Joint Medical Experts meeting report and in the Judges report throwing out Paul Holmes case.

Dr Kanackal Alex George 28 Dec 2017 22:30 #30

  • Alex George
  • Alex George's Avatar
Busy day today with hopefully sensible and grateful patients.

Sasha Rodoy, you haven’t posted the reports I demanded, to prove your contention that I made untrue statements. If you are scrambling through the GMC websites to get a copy of their Investigation report or approaching Paul Holmes for the Joint Medical Experts report, it won’t help you because I have copies of both and it only establishes that you had NO proof to support yourself when you wrote that my statements were untrue. Just as you made libellous false allegations and accusations against me.

And you havent published your LVC Consent form probably because it will make you look foolish. You would have definitely signed that you would need readers when you agreed to get corrected for distance. No Surgeon would have operated upon you without your signature. And now you make complaints and make it your life’s goal to run this impotent campaign. Mark my words - nothing is going to come off it. You would be better off earning an honest salary in an honest job.

You are in the same category of people like Paul Holmes who stated that he was forced to sign his Consent form after being sedated and Stephanie Holloway saying that nurses forced her to sign the Consent form and of course you, a 57 year old getting corrected for Myopia, saying that she did not realise the need for readers would apply to her. Don’t you ‘Adults’ have the courage to uphold the credibility of your signatures? It doesn’t end there. The letters on the Consent form were too small.... My pupils were dilated..... The Consent form was too technical........ Come on! After the age of 12 none of you are children so why don’t you take responsibility for your signatures?

And your web site. It only portrays dire doom and gloom so sabotages the results of refractive surgery in some gullible patients. A tremendous disservice to patients, something your political patrons in the Labour Party will soon come to know.

OERML Twitter Feed