PRESS & MEDIA

Please see previous posts about this story here: www.opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk/ind...opic&catid=5&id=1509

Another I'm A Celebrity contestant suffering problems after refractive lens exchange surgery!


 


After reading lots of press interviews online discussing Frankie Dettori’s light sensitivity post surgery, I then looked at a few clips featuring him in the TV jungle, and he’s certainly doing a lot of squinting, shading his 👀 with either a green sunshade or his hat.

With his surgery only a few months ago, struggling with photophobia, it is indisputably VERY irresponsible behaviour to risk further damage by not wearing sunglasses in this situation!

I don’t know where Frankie had RLE surgery, but the operation is the same, and the problems the same - no matter where!

I suppose it’s too much to hope for that he and Fred Sirieix might chat on camera about their problems after lens exchange surgery  

Of course this has nothing to with the ever increasing number of damaged patients, many successfully suing both the company and majority of its surgeons - and following recent information provided by Optical Express insiders, I suspect things are going to get rapidly worse with David Moulsdale at the helm 👀



‘Scottish eyecare company Optical Express has reported a decline in turnover and profits which it blamed on the result of headwinds from the cost-of-living crisis.

In its latest set of annual accounts filed with Companies House, Optical Express parent company Lorena Investments posted revenues of £146.5 million during the year to December 2022, down from £157.4m previously. Pre-tax profits fell to £39.8m versus £52.1m.

Owned by David Moulsdale, who set up the business in 1991, Glasgow-based Optical Express said its financial performance was hampered by the escalation in operating costs linked to higher electricity, supplier and wage bills. Reduced confidence and disposable income among consumers meant fewer patients proceeded with laser eye surgery, which drove a hefty increase in revenues and profits in the previous year.’
www.heraldscotland.com/news/23821339.opt...er-revenues-profits/

Con or cure!

What a perfect platform this would have been for #mbefoundation and my work, to help expose the unregulated #refractivesurgery scandal!

In fact, I was invited to feature in this programme last year



On 19 Oct 2022, at 12:20, Laura wrote:

'Hi Sasha,

Great chatting with you yesterday! Spoke with the team this morning and like me, they’re keen to feature the story...

We’re putting together the info for the commissioner and I wanted to confirm if you knew anyone else who would like to join you in speaking out on the topic? If you want to pass my email on to them or if they would like me to reach out to them, I’m more than happy to do so. I looked up Paul Dance- what an awful thing to have happened, I know you worked to support his widow- would she be willing to discuss what happened?

Do let me know your thoughts?

Best wishes,
Laura'

Series producer Karen Donnelly ( www.thetalentmanager.com/talent/1206 ) called to discuss in more detail, 100% eager to include me and MBEF, adamant that this scandal should be publicised, proposing to film interviews within the next two weeks.

A few days later, another call from Karen, saying that her producer had been warned by someone in the Rip Off Britain team (sharing the same BBC office) that Optical Express were litigious, and they didn’t want to risk it!*

But this was about the entire #refractivesurgery industry, not just OE; the latter impotent bullies who won't risk suing anyone nowadays, because they would lose - you cannot defend the indefensible, especially when its backed up with hard evidence!

Regular readers will remember that they eventually dropped their multimillion claim against Associated Newspapers re Daily Mail article in 2017.
'And unfortunately, since Optical Express issued their (approx) £21.5 million claim against Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL) re Daily Mail's cover of Daniel Boffey’s story, every time a journalist has contacted me keen to write a story, they’ve come back to me a few days later with excuses for suddenly losing interest.'
www.facebook.com/OERML/posts/no-more-ms-...to-/1363485330425033

However, Karen assured me that she felt very strongly that this story should be publicised, and she intended to fight for it.

I never heard from her again.

*ROB had contacted me in 2017, similarly expressing their intention to cover this scandal.

I provided them with all the information and case studies they wanted, travelling to BBC Manchester studios in August 2017, when they filmed a lengthy interview with me.

But shortly before broadcast, the programme’s Creative Director, Rob Unsworth, told me there wasn’t enough time to include anything from my interview!

This information from the ROB team to Karen therefore proved what I had known all along, that Rob was lying!

In parts, the ROB piece was more like a promo for the industry, interviews with some of the most devastating case studies not featured: "At very short notice I contacted a number of OE’s damaged patients willing to be interviewed on camera, but they [ROB] pushed me for more ’shocking’ cases, operated on no earlier than 2016, telling me that otherwise the piece would be dropped."

Plenty of time was given to The Royal College of Ophthalmologists representatives in the piece, advertising the joys of unregulated refractive surgery!
www.facebook.com/OERML/photos/when-the-r...as-/1435161513257414

And as I said then, it takes 10-15 seconds max for me to say, ‘I am a patient advocate and I represent thousands of patients damaged by the unregulated refractive eye surgery industry, including myself, and I have worked with Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell since 2012 campaigning for government regulation!’

Full ROB story here: 'URGENT! 16 Aug 2017 15:25'
www.opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk/ind...media?start=70#13963

LED headlights on many new cars 'specifically designed not to dazzle other road users'! How new?
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208328...-LED-headlights.html

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/13/olde...powerful-headlights/

'Elderly drivers are being forced off the road due to the increasing use of illegal ultra-powerful headlights that are affecting their ability to drive safely.

The College of Optometrists (CO) has told The Telegraph that its members are seeing an increase in the number of patients that are no longer driving at night due to the dazzle from LED lights.

It said these issues are particularly acute for those older drivers with eye conditions, such as cataracts, due to the impact bright lights have on people with those conditions.

Avoiding driving at night

Analysis from the RAC has found that 16 per cent of motorists avoided driving at night because of the intensity of headlights, with 25 per cent of drivers over 65 opting against night driving.

Rod Dennis, RAC spokesman, said: “Badly angled headlights might be something to do with it, but drivers tell us they also believe it’s the increasing number of cars on the roads fitted with piercingly bright LED headlights that’s to blame.”

LED headlights currently fall into two categories, those that are installed in new cars at the factory, but also LEDs that have been retrofitted to replace original halogen bulbs.

It is currently illegal to retrofit LED lights into a car being used on public roads, and there are no regulations around the intensity of these lights, or how they are installed, increasing the chances of drivers being dazzled.

‘Regulations not up with market’

Retailer Halfords estimates that there could be as many as 860,000 of these “aftersale” lights have been bought in the UK but believes some may have been purchased in the country but are being used overseas.

A Halfords spokesperson said: “The regulations have not caught up with the market, and as things stand these bulbs can only be fitted legally to off-road vehicles.

“We want to see the regulations updated, not just so that people can fit LED bulbs to road vehicles legally, but to make it easier for motorists to distinguish between compliant bulbs that don’t dazzle and bulbs that do not meet standards of quality and safety.”

However, Mr Dennis believes that while aftersale bulbs might be part of the problem, the sheer number of people complaining suggests that it might be all LEDs that are causing problems.

He added: “It’s this that needs testing – sadly at the moment there’s a distinct lack of recent scientific evidence that helps explain the root causes of the problem.”

Minimising glare

Mike Hawes, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, said all headlights must comply with legislation that ensures they produce a pattern of light that minimises glare while maximising the distance drivers can see.

He added: “Headlights, and in particular their aim, are checked during the MOT and so long as an approved bulb is fitted, correct aim will minimise glare, which is ultimately a subjective issue affecting different people to greater or lesser extents.”

The dazzle, or what is clinically known as glare, is caused by the loss of contrast, which happens when light scatters within the eye, and gives drivers the impression a veil has been thrown over their vision.

Denise Voon, clinical adviser at the CO, said that glare for drivers does increase where there are multiple light sources, such as on a busy road, and if you have eye conditions, such as cataracts.

She said: “The majority of people over 60 have some level of cataracts, which results in your intraocular lens, which judges distance, getting more cloudy with age.

“If you make that slightly more foggy, you’ll get increased light scatter and increased glare and it will be just more difficult for drivers to see.”

However, it is not just elderly drivers affected, with a survey by the RAC finding that three in 10 drivers between 17 and 34 believing car lights are too bright.

Collisions from ‘dazzle’

Government collision data between 2012 and 2022, shows that on average 270 collisions each year had “dazzling headlights” given as a contributory factor; 56 casualties across the period were fatal.

Baroness Hayter, who has campaigned on the issue, said: “The CO and the RAC report numerous cases of headlight glare, any many drivers – like myself – are increasingly choosing not to drive at night because of the dazzle from these new, white and bright lights.

“The Government should act now rather than see people driven off the road or accidents happening.”

A DfT spokesperson said: “Safety on our roads is paramount. All headlights must adhere to strict technical standards and there are regulations in place to minimise the impact of LEDs.

“While data doesn’t link new lighting technology with specific road safety issues, our engineers raised these concerns at an international expert group in April, where it was agreed for new standards around headlamp aiming and levelling systems to further reduce glare.”'

Sasha Rodoy v Barnet Council published in Barnet Borough Times newspaper today - front page headlines 👀

‘Sasha said other people across the country had been affected by LED street lamps. Charity Light Aware has submitted evidence to a House of Lords inquiry citing “significant negative impacts on the health and wellbeing of light-disabled and light-sensitive individuals”.

The charity’s submission adds: “LightAware believe that the introduction of external LED lighting in the UK, particularly LED streetlighting, has been rushed through without an adequate consideration of the long-term effect of the resulting light pollution on people’s health.”’

Mentioned online, but not included in newspaper edition: ‘Other Barnet residents also claim to have been disturbed by the lamps. Ajait Patel, of Firs Avenue, Friern Barnet, said he had to swap bedrooms after the LED lamps were installed because the light shining into the room was so bright – despite having put up blackout blinds and curtains to block it out.’

www.times-series.co.uk/news/23473250.wom...t-led-street-lights/

Please note that this paragraph is partially incorrect (now amended): ’Sasha is now taking the council to court over the issue but says this could have been avoided if the council had engaged with her when she first contacted the local authority in 2018, before the lights were installed, but her concerns were not taken seriously’.

In fact I knew nothing about the LEDs prior to installation on 21 January 2020, contacting Barnet Council the next day, because at no time did they consult with residents!

No mention of the bird disturbance in this article, tweeting at all hours throughout the night, confused by LED streetlights to believe it’s daylight, but hopefully that will be picked up by the press when we eventually go to trial - expected to be 2024.

Quite aptly, the photo the publication chose to use was taken at a demo outside Optimax Finchley Road premises earlier this year!

barnetpost.co.uk/2023/04/20/resident-tak...l-led-street-lights/

www.fox9.com/news/fda-lasik-eye-surgery-...-draft-guidance-2022

’The FDA wants LASIK eye surgery patients to know more about the risks of what’s become a popular procedure for correcting vision problems.
The federal agency has issued a 25-page draft report outlining how doctors should better inform patients about the potential for double vision, dry eyes, poor night vision, eye pain and other side effects after LASIK surgery.

But eye doctors who’ve been successfully doing the procedures for 25 years say they’re already trained to give patients a "balanced discussion" on the benefits and risks. Doctors also say the draft doesn’t reference the government’s own studies about how safe and effective the procedure is.

The recommendations are being made based on concerns that some patients are not receiving and/or understanding information regarding the benefits and risks of LASIK devices," the FDA draft says. "These labeling recommendations are intended to enhance, but not replace, the physician-patient discussion of the benefits and risks of LASIK devices that uniquely pertain to individual patient."

Dr. Vance Thompson, incoming vice president of the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, is one of many doctors who take issue with the draft guidance.

"There are important risks and side effects that are well-understood, as with any procedure, but one of the main reasons it was deemed safe and effective is a lot of these things get better with time," he told FOX TV Stations. "We have wonderful tests to be able to show us if the patient is a good candidate for LASIK."

What the draft guidance is lacking, Thompson said, is information on the benefits of LASIK. Most people come out of LASIK with 20/20 vision or better, according to the Mayo Clinic, and the majority of LASIK patients are satisfied with their surgeries.

Thompson said the draft includes claims that "aren’t evidence-based," and they can needlessly scare people when they don’t take into account each patient’s individual situation.

"We just think that when we talk about balance, it’s important to not only mention the risks, but mention its advantages and put them in perspective," Thompson said. "The well-documented studies on the safety and efficacy, it’s not in here."

"What we basically asked the FDA to do is withdraw the document, and if they want to carry forward with it … to work with us, to re-examine current patient-education materials, and identify opportunities that may improve patient education about LASIK procedures," Thompson continued.

Nearly 700 people have submitted comments on the FDA draft guidance since it was issued in July.

The comments are a mixed bag of satisfied and dissatisfied LASIK patients, as well as doctors who say the FDA’s report is biased and "based on the premise that LASIK devices approved by the FDA are unsafe and unreliable in the hands of duly certified and licensed physicians."’

700 includes positive comments from lucky patients and biased surgeons, a minuscule fraction of the countless thousands of people damaged by lasik that campaigners are aware of, across the US, UK, and worldwide.

So yes, let’s talk ‘evidence based’ and ‘bias’! Because in the eleven years of my work I’ve seen nothing but bias, entirely in favour of the industry, with damaged patients silenced, when the press and media are threatened with legal action if they dare publish/broadcast the truth!

And sadly, as I have personally experienced so many times over the years of my work, the industry generally succeed in scaring them off!

But it’s all bluff people! Publish, let us talk on camera, because I guarantee no-one will sue you, not here in the UK at least, because truth from damaged patients can be supported by hard evidence!

Even Optical Express, having issued court proceedings against the Daily Mail for defamation in 2015, dropped their claim in 2017 after I provided the legal team for Associated Newspapers with witnesses and evidence that would have destroyed them in court, and publicly!

And when you have people like Steve Schallhorn involved in approval of laser eye surgery, medical devices, etc…, I trust the FDA as much as I do every organisation in the UK that allegedly protects the public - that’s as far as I can throw a double decker bus (not least the General Medical Council (GMC)*), because there is too much money involved, Big Pharma greasing hands at EVERY level!

However, it is encouraging to know that the industry is so bothered by this draft that they’re asking for it to be withdrawn by the FDA.

NB: It should be noted that UK campaigners call for regulation of the entire #refractivesurgery industry, not only Lasik, but ALL non medically essential eye surgery, including Lasek/PRK, ICLs, and RLE/NLR (refractive lens exchange aka natural lens replacement).

And since 2014, the problems with RLE continue to rapidly increase exponentially, being sold to people far too young to undergo what is essentially cataract surgery - some only in their thirties, shockingly removing perfectly healthy natural lenses. This is because the profit for lens surgery far exceeds that of laser eye surgery.

*To protect, promote and maintain the health and safety of the public by ensuring proper standards in the practice of medicine.

This FDA draft guidance is causing concern within the refractive surgery industry worldwide, who are naturally claiming sensationalism and denying the truth


www.bostonglobe.com/2022/12/07/nation/la...ions-fda-draft-says/

ITV's This Morning presenter Philip Schofield irritating the hell out of me again recently, not least because - claiming to be 'at the cutting edge’, he continues to promote eye surgery to his fans, who lap up every word as gospel, when he really doesn’t know what he’s talking about

July 2020, during lockdown, when countless thousands of people were dying, this selfish man was whining that his vision had ’slipped’ since his freebie #lasereyesurgery a number of years earlier (performed by Dan Reinstein & featured on This Morning), complaining to co-host Holly Willoughby, ‘the laser place isn’t open!’, who sensibly responded: ’I like glasses!’

A few months later, he was whinging about floaters again!

This self obsessed diva is now posting about having had a vitrectomy, claiming, 'If you have been told "just live with them" that is not necessarily true, I’m sure there are exceptions, but they can be fixed.'

In fact the majority of people do have to live with floaters, unless so debilitating that they seriously affect their quality of life, or, like Phillip Schofield you have enough money to get what you want - not what you necessarily need!

And if Schofield gave a flying f*ck about anyone else other than himself (crocodile tears on screen don’t move me), I trust he wouldn’t be clamouring for attention in this pathetic manner, when there are countless numbers of people with far worse problems than his, many of them My Beautiful Eyes Foundation clients!

'Adamant that he was not suffering from retinal detachment, Schofield described his floaters as having “literally blighted my otherwise brilliant eyesight.”’*

This begs the question, how did his eyesight become ‘brilliant’, given his moans in July 2020, as surely he'd have milked it if he'd had more laser surgery?

'Phillip Schofield to be first Brit to have pioneering eye surgery as he reveals debilitating condition’**

For the record, Schofield was far from being the 'first Brit', and how long can a procedure be termed ‘pioneering’?

Regardless of which, I have no doubt that GPs, optoms, and retinal specialists (besides Prof Stanga, presumably now inundated with private consultation bookings) won't thank him for encouraging requests for surgery that most people cannot have, contrary to ‘Dr' Schofield’s expert opinion!

Media personalities should NOT be advertising ANY surgery, nor claiming to be experts at the 'cutting edge’!

And instead of posting topless selfies on his Instagram, methinks Schofield would be better employed inviting Dan Peedell (and others damaged by London Vision Clinic owner Dan Reinstein) to share their experiences on This Morning.***

Greg Brady’s story re AccuVision and Prashant Jindal also ignored by the media, though widely published by the mainstream press a few months ago.

Similarly, Paul Dance’s suicide, a result of devastating results of his lens replacement surgery at Optegra Eye Hospital, persuaded by their highly paid Clarivu brand ‘ambassador’, This Morning presenter Ruth Langsford, telling everyone, ’Do it, do it, do it!’.
Paul’s tragic story was TV sofa gold, yet totally ignored by the media.****

And my invitation in 2019 to guest alongside Dan Reinstein withdrawn by This Morning, after the cowardly doctor refused to appear with me, highlighting the fact that TV producers consider promotion of #refractivesurgery more important to viewers than educating them about the very real risks, and irreversible damage that so often happens, not forgetting the cost to the NHS!*****

All the above stories, and thousands more, are worthy of a seat on TV sofas, instead of giving free fluffy publicity to surgeons who continue to damage patients’ eyes, often in litigation, and successfully kept from public consumption.

Time for balance not bias!

* www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/1641...y-symptoms-treatment
** www.ok.co.uk/tv/daytime/phillip-schofiel...on-floaters-22842211
*** 2 February 2020: www.opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk/ind...london-vision-clinic
The Mirror took Dan Peedell’s story offline due to complaints from Dan Reinstein. However, it's available to read here: www.pressreader.com/uk/the-people/20200202/281840055651824
**** www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-55079239
*****17 Oct 2019: www.opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk/ind...london-vision-clinic