Dr Kanackal Alex George

  • admin
  • admin's Avatar Offline Topic Author
  • Posts: 1161
  • Thank you received: 153

Replied by admin on topic Alex George to John McDonnell

Posted 02 Jan 2018 19:27 #21

The letter of course the one Alex posted here yesterday.

I don’t know what the Shadow Chancellor’s reply to Alex George will be, as we haven’t yet had a chance to discuss.

But I can assure the deluded doctor that, whatever John replies, it won’t include the following...

“Dear Dr George

Really sorry to hear about the problems Sasha Rodoy is causing you, because of course you should be free to continue damaging patients without her interference.

I will publicly denounce her and withdraw my support immediately...”

Alex George is way out of his depth, perhaps not realising how closely I work with John McDonnell, since 2012, campaigning for regulation of this corrupt and dangerous industry.

I have to admit that I’m beginning to feel like a cat tormenting a crippled mouse :kiss:
Last Edit:02 Jan 2018 19:56 by admin
  • Anonymous

Replied by Anonymous on topic Happy New Year to all !

Posted 01 Jan 2018 18:55 #22
Thank god we have Sasha to police this industry, I find it incredible that you Dr Alex George seem to take no responsibility for these patients damaged by the effects of the surgery you performed on them.
Without the likes of Sasha to police this industry and to get it recognised for what it is there would be a lot more people suffering similar to the thousands who have had surgery with Optical Express. I look at Sasha as a champion for humanity honesty and fairness.
Long may she carry on her crusade against this unregulated industry.
Last Edit:02 Jan 2018 04:24 by Anonymous
  • Alex George

Replied by Alex George on topic Happy New Year to all !

Posted 01 Jan 2018 11:32 #23
Dr Kanackal Alex George
Self-employed Refractive Eye Surgeon
GMC Specialist Registration 3633782

Mr John McDonnell
Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer
House of Commons

01st January 2018
Ms Sasha Rodoy, Web site- www.opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk (OERML)
Dear Mr McDonnell,
A Happy New Year to you.
As described above, I am a Refractive Ophthalmologist performing Intra Ocular Lens Surgery and Laser Vision Correction to improve vision and get rid of the need for spectacles and Contact lenses of my patients. I have been specialised in this field for the last 15 years and have all the requisite qualifications and registrations in order to do so. More than most people know, Refractive surgery is continually progressing with improvements in equipment, quality of lenses, updated software programs and I, as do many colleague Surgeons, incorporate recent evidence based practice methods. It is a fast progressing and advancing speciality.
Refractive Surgery is unique in that main patients demographic comprise personalities that look for perfection and most are professionals who seek to better themselves. That makes for challenges because it requires introspection on the part of both patients and health professionals to confirm suitability for the procedure and following the surgery some patients need prolonged postoperative care due to higher than usual expectations of results and speed of progress. Some 15% of them require further surgical procedures and adaptation to the special lenses is imperative for success. Preoperative discussions and thorough study of the detailed consent forms, which are issued a minimum of a week before surgery, are mandatory. In these days of search engines and Internet websites, thorough research is imperative by potential patients. A good understanding of the technology, its risks and benefits in partnership with the healthcare professionals, supplemented with good postoperative support and care is crucial to the success of the Refractive procedure.
In my years doing this surgery I am well aware of the immense joy of successful patients, who are in the significant majority far outstripping unhappy ones. A good 15 to 20% of patients are initially disappointed but in a variable period of time everything settles and they become relatively happy. There is, as in all surgeries, a small percentage who require further multiple procedures and sometimes even removal of the Intra-ocular lens because they just do not settle or they intractable difficulty in adapting to the vision of the new lenses. Unfortunately, we do not have any instrument or test that can demonstrate what the post-operative vision would be like so there has to be a leap of faith on the part of both the patient and the Surgeon. All this is clearly informed in their Consent forms and all postoperative care and surgeries are done free of charge in the first year by which time a definite decision on success or failure should be made.
It is in the post-operative phase of some of my patients that Sasha Rodoy and her website is proving to be a major hindrance to my work. I am aware that she holds you and Mr Jeremy Corbyn in high esteem and by sending you and Mr Corbyn this letter I hope that she can be influenced to understand the significant disruption she is causing to my patients who have undergone refractive surgery.
Sasha Rodoy set up her OERML site because she was dissatisfied with her Laser Vision correction with Optimax in 2011 and my analysis is that one of the main factors in her dissatisfaction is her current need for reading glasses. This situation needed to have been expected as she, at the age of 57, was having her short sightedness corrected to avoid distance vision glasses. It would most definitely have been informed in her Consent form before surgery. In her website she labels all disappointed patients as ‘damaged’, goads them into litigation and advocates complaining to the GMC and the GOC. Postoperative patients who are vulnerable because of their initial dissatisfaction need support and encouragement to stick to the medical plan outlined in their consent forms but then they get exposed to the dire doom and gloom that they encounter in her website which is populated by a coterie of other unhappy refractive surgery patients who feed into their despondency. These unhappy
have all probably abandoned the advice to follow through with their own medical instructions of the need for further care but it is possible that some may not have been suitable for the procedure in the first place. Selection procedures were different in the past but have continually improved as years go by.
I have treated scores of initially dissatisfied patients and most of them turn out to become successful patients but exposure to Sasha Rodoy’s website is TOXIC to any patient’s postoperative course.
I can inform you the names, at least two patients of mine who became failures because they were persuaded to take a legal course probably after being exposed to the OERML site rather than insisting on meeting me to address their difficulties after their surgeries. I saw them only at them at the time of their surgery and then next I was informed that they had gone legal, despite their signing to the possibility of further postoperative care and procedures. If at that early post-operative period they had insisted on seeing me I am reasonably confident, that their names would be among the successes. Unfortunately, they were convinced that they were ‘damaged’ and that going legal was their only recourse.
Once legal proceedings commence Surgeons cannot intervene in their care and then the downward spiral begins. Despondency, Self-pity, depression and despair follow. NHS doctors do not have the skills that we refractive surgeons have and the few doctors who do, will only treat privately – so
more expenses. Such patients need the right advice and encouragement which they certainly are not getting from Sasha Rodoy or her OERML website.
On a personal note, I became involved with Sasha Rodoy when she propagated lies that I did not have adequate Professional Indemnity when I operated on one of my patients, PH, who became influenced by the OERML site to go legal without meeting me to have his issues addressed. This patient lost his legal case against me on medical and judicial grounds but then tried to blackmail me. I rebuffed him so he went on to lie to Sasha Rodoy that I did not have appropriate Professional indemnity. The issue of Indemnity was investigated by the Irish Medical Council (IMC) and the General Medical Council (GMC) at the time and proven that I had done no wrong and both investigations were closed. However, by propagating the lie in her OERML website before waiting for the results of the investigations, Sasha Rodoy has maligned and libelled me in the eyes of thousands of my patients. She followed it up by making some more statements which she could not back up with any proof. I have therefore c
legal proceedings against her and have no doubt that she is acting out of some sense of entitlement. She portrays herself to have friends in high places and that she can attack us Surgeons who, in the main, shy away from the negative publicity.
Sasha Rodoy has further accused me of being responsible for the death of another patient, HJ, who, unfortunately, passed away during the course of her legal action against me. The patient was the other one who did not meet me after her surgery and was, in all probability, goaded to go legal influenced by Sasha Rodoy’s website. She was an eligible candidate for refractive surgery in accordance with International guidelines and she, in my opinion, probably only needed some extra post-operative support and care similar to other patients like her. Unfortunately, the patient was declared as ‘damaged’ and not given proper advice and guidance to stick to her ongoing medical care rather than going into litigation. That legal process was left incomplete due to her demise so there was no judicial declaration of anything untoward in her surgical course.
Patronage from prominent personalities like yourself and Jeremy Corbyn may well be playing a part in Sasha Rodoy’s brazen misdeeds against me and giving her the oxygen to make false allegations and accusations without hesitation. I have informed her that I would be writing to you about my reprehensible experience with her and her website’s malign influence on my patients. I had given her a month to apologise to me and publish a retraction but she, quite arrogantly, has chosen to ignore that so that that leaves me with no choice but to act on the advice of my lawyers who have informed me that she and the patient PH who initially told her lies about me and that she propagated, are both culpable. I have commenced legal action against them and her OERML website.
Refractive surgery companies like Optimax and Optical Express have many failings in the way they conduct their business and deal with their patients that I have no hesitation in deprecating. There is significant room for improvement there but I hope Sasha Rodoy realises that she cannot hope to influence that change by antagonising everyone and Surgeons like me who, in the main, try to do the best for our patients in difficult circumstances. I have informed her that her campaign to denigrate Refractive surgery is impotent and bound to fail because scientific progress is unstoppable. There are more than enough patients who seek the benefits of the surgery on the word of mouth and experience of happy patients before them. However, I am concerned about the number of patients
she could further harm through that absolute travesty of her OERML website, till the book gets thrown at her.
Sasha Rodoy is an intelligent woman and I cannot help but contemplating that she could be an immense force for good if she realises the destructive and detrimental influence she has on patients and visitors to her site and changes her ways. With her own experience as a patient she has the wherewithal to inform, explain and support the public to take the choices right for themselves. She could ease the anxiety and help postoperative patients rather than deepening their gloom. She had requested a meeting with me in 2018 and I had agreed to meet her if she heeded my demand to first clear the air by apologising for her libellous actions but she seems to have difficulty in making amends for her misdeeds.
I have all the papers and reports to support my above statements and shall happily forward them to you.

Alex George
Last Edit:03 Jan 2018 13:42 by Alex George
  • Robert Marlow
  • Robert Marlow's Avatar Offline
  • Posts: 3
  • Thank you received: 0

Replied by Robert Marlow on topic Dr Kanackal Alex George

Posted 31 Dec 2017 05:18 #24
I find your response to my correspondence with you sickening and totally absent of any humanity.
You are indeed a very deluded and nasty piece of work.
No, there was no ranting by me, just the truth. Truth and honesty and integrity, which sadly you and optical express have none.
Your self importance indeed also I find sickening .
Your reluctance to accept any responsibility for your actions I find totally unbelievable.
Having read your response to various damaged patients the only person ranting on your page is you .
Last Edit:31 Dec 2017 05:29 by Robert Marlow
  • Carl G
  • Carl G's Avatar Offline
  • Posts: 27
  • Thank you received: 7

Replied by Carl G on topic Dr Kanackal Alex George

Posted 30 Dec 2017 10:07 #25
Somewhat disturbed by the statements Alex George appears to be making here. 'Surgery is 50% of the success. Neuroadaptation is the remaining 50%.' So where does lens design come into this equation? Yet again, ophthalmologists appear to be taking a leap of faith - prompted no doubt on the incentives offered by lens suppliers - that multifocal lenses are of a sufficient optical quality to justify implanting them into the eye. From personal experience I have to tell you they are not. Apart from the obvious artefacts - starbursts, halos, ghosting - the reduction in visual contrast produced by multifocal lenses is horrifying. No amount of 'neuroadaptation' will compensate for not being able to distinguish objects in shadows, or sudden loss of ability to pick out bends in the road at twilight. Not would any amount of due diligence, not unless the packets the lenses come in had 'these things don't work' stamped in large letters on them. And apart from reduced contrast caused by the design of the kinoforms of these lenses (proper research and due diligence also requires that you become expert in the physics of light, didn't you know?) the gaps in visual sharpness at weird distances are horrendous.

Addressing the other two deficiencies in the above statement (both neurological and statistical); as the human vision system is not yet fully understood (meaning the method by which our brain processes images) it is by definition impossible to assess in advance whether any given patient will be able to adapt to multifocal lenses. Personally I have a strong suspicion that unless a patient’s visual starting point is so dramatically bad they're practically blind anyway multifocal lenses will never produce a good outcome. Do not expect to be able to distinguish faces at middle distances for example. By the way, what Alex George is quite literally suggesting, although he patently doesn't realise the implication of his statement, is that Optical Express surgeries should carry the warning CAVEAT EMPTOR [Let the buyer beware] writ large over their doorways and on their contracts.

On the second point: because the RCO's ability to produce statistics is at a level so inferior to any other commercial industry in the UK (the justification for the 95% 'success' figure is laughable, I've argued this with them on a number of occasions and never left convinced that they have the ability to count past 10 without taking their shoes and socks off) it mires itself in incredulity, to the extent that one ends up with the very real suspicion that success statistics for multifocal and monofocal lenses are being conflated. In any event, 95% success implies 5% failure, i.e. 1 in 20 - which would be considered a monumental disaster by the NHS, odds only marginally better than those offered by Russian Roulette. No other industry would be allowed to get away with such poorly substantiated advertising - and I think the RCO's claims will be shown for the nonsense they are quite soon.

Also, Alex George's threat of 'abandonment' if one proceeds down the litigation route is clearly nonsensical - Optical Express abandons its patients anyway, so what difference does it make? Get in there and sue, I say. (I did).

To summarise, because I could go on for days on this topic (and yes, I too have far better things to do with my time).

1: Ophthalmologists are playing with toys they do not fully understand - the optics of multifocal lenses and the processes of the human brain involved with interpreting images (scalpels they're okay with). Because these two are interrelated, and because in fact nobody fully understands our vision system, nobody can predict whether a patient will 'neuroadapt' well or badly to multifocal lenses.

2: Because the statistics and information provided by companies such as Optical Express are based on poorly segmented data - yes they are, the RCO tacitly accepted the point when I asked about Lentis MPlus-X lenses in a public meeting with Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell present, and they conceded then that successful outcome fell far below 95% (closer to zero I suspect) but that this statistic had not been incorporated into their overall claims (this is called cherry picking) it is impossible for any process of due diligence to be based on anything other than false information. Also, as OE optometrists will tell you that an early stage cataract is justification for RLE (which in my opinion may actually be a criminal offence) the information provided in the final clause - the point at which you sign - is effectively invalidated. Go read it again and check the parenthesis which reads 'except for the cataracts'.

3. Multifocal lenses are experimental and unnatural, and frankly do not work very well. You need cataract surgery? Go to the NHS and get monofocal lenses. The outcome (in terms of both visual quality and visual acuity) will be a damn sight (sic) better.
Last Edit:30 Dec 2017 17:56 by Carl G
The following user(s) said Thank You: admin
  • Sasha Rodoy
  • Sasha Rodoy's Avatar Offline
  • Posts: 33
  • Thank you received: 1

Replied by Sasha Rodoy on topic Sasha Rodoy to Dr Alex George

Posted 30 Dec 2017 09:05 #26
Alex George, as you are addressing me personally, not as admin of OERML, I will answer as such.

However, after reading with fascination some of the information you have posted concerning refractive eye surgery, before I respond to your repeated ‘demand’ that I publish copies of documents relating to Paul Holmes’ legal claim against you, and my own Optimax signed consent, it would be helpful for me to better understand your reply to Mr Starburst claiming, ‘Surgery is 50% of success. Neuroadaptation is the remaining 50%.

A quick google search found the following article, and as a lay person with more knowledge about this industry than most, perhaps that’s why I found it simple to understand.

But maybe I am not as well informed as I thought, because its content implies that neuroadaptation is mostly relevant to intraocular lens implants?

Please correct me if I have misunderstood, as Mr Starburst’s post referred to refractive eye surgery in general.

I was also interested to read this paragraph from your letter to the IMC, presumably written by your legal representative:
In or around March/April 2013 in connection with a separate matter, the Medical Defence Union (MDU) asked if I was performing Cataract surgery or Refractive Lens Exchange (RLE) surgery. In surgical terms both procedures are identical and I made this point clear to the MDU. The MDU had been my insurer since 2009 and had never asked this question before because they too deemed Cataract surgery and RLE surgery to be the same. The MDU informed me that they were now distinguishing between Cataract surgery and RLE surgery and they would not cover the latter under their Articles of Association, declaring that their cover was discretionary. I complained to the Financial Ombudsman about this but I was told that the MDU could do this, as set out in their Articles.

Not only is this of interest to legal firms representing the ever increasing numbers of damaged patients, but it also supports Paul Holmes’s contention that you did not have medical insurance cover when you operated on him.

I was also contacted by a London based legal firm asking for information earlier this year, after they too found the same situation with another of your damaged patients they are representing, possibly the ‘separate matter’ you mention?

You also told Mr Starburst, ‘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.’

I was not advised by Optimax at any time, in any format, that I was 50% responsible for the success of my surgery - nor were any of my clients that I know of, regardless of the responsible clinic/surgeon.

This is a valuable piece of information, and I sincerely thank you for it!

I’m also curious to know how you define ‘essential research’? And in which document given to patients pre op is this instruction given? It was not mentioned in my consent form, and I cannot recall having seen it in any of the many copies I have of OE’s ever changing consent form.

NB: I am currently overseas so cannot check this as I’m unable to access most of my files until my return in the new year.

I look forward to your response :kiss:

Btw, if you haven’t yet found a legal firm willing to take on your libel claim against me, I recommend Carter-Ruck, who briefly represented Patrick James Green*, previous OE General Ops Director and the only person to date who went as far as instructing lawyers in 2013, dropped like a hot cake after I explained that everything I had published was true, supported with hard evidence.

Or perhaps David Moulsdale will put in a good word with Schillings for you.
* www.opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk/ind...ick-james-green.html
Last Edit:13 Mar 2018 21:10 by Sasha Rodoy
  • Robert Marlow
  • Robert Marlow's Avatar Offline
  • Posts: 3
  • Thank you received: 0

Replied by Robert Marlow on topic Remember Hazel Jones

Posted 30 Dec 2017 04:11 #27

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.
by Robert Marlow
  • Anonymous

Replied by Anonymous on topic Remember Hazel Jones

Posted 29 Dec 2017 22:47 #28
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.
by Anonymous
  • Anonymous

Replied by Anonymous on topic Dr Kanackal Alex George

Posted 29 Dec 2017 20:11 #29
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
Last Edit:31 Dec 2017 05:54 by Anonymous
  • Alex George

Replied by Alex George on topic Dr Kanackal Alex George

Posted 29 Dec 2017 18:07 #30
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.
by Alex George
Moderators: admin

OERML & My Beautiful Eyes Foundation rely on your support to expose the horrors of this unregulated industry.

Your help is very much appreciated!