TOPIC:

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!

www.opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk/ind...ge-rle.html?start=20

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.

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.

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.

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.

You, Alex George, must have a very warped mind as you seem to be implying that patients damaged by the elective refractive eye surgery industry are in some way 'acceptable casualties'! I would class any surgeon who damaged a patient & then said the surgery was performed flawlessly as definitely having a warped mind, because the whole process from consultation to surgery and after should have had the surgeon directly involved, which in many clinics, especially Optical Express and Optimax, simply doesn't happen!

“Nearly all doctors recite the original Hippocratic Oath or an alternative version of it in medical school. Yet it remains controversial, prompting questions about whether it should be retired.
Defenders assert that it has as much relevance today as ever, because it remains a public declaration of the social contract between the profession of medicine, its individual members, and society as a whole. Critics wonder whether the oath is a "necessary protection or an elaborate hoax." This is because the notion that a physician has independent power to behave morally and ethically in the treatment of patients is complex, given the role of the health insurance industry, hospital employers, and the pharmaceutical industry, not to mention the still-pervasive fee-for-service environment.
The oath, written 2400 years ago in and for a simpler time, appears silent on these issues. Thus, the question becomes: is the Hippocratic Oath still relevant?”
www.medscape.com/viewarticle/872234

Death and Suicide due to any surgery is never the objective. My condolences.

However, which Surgery has NO complications. No ‘real surgeon’ can give guarantees of 100% success to their patients. The Hippocratic oath also states about adverse outcomes - do read it again.

It is the success rate far outstripping the complication rate that keeps any surgery progressing in Medicine.

Hazel went in for surgery at your clinic healthy and happy. She came out with headaches, dry sore eyes, seeing flashing lights, floaters.
Coincidence that thousands of people have the same problems after surgery at Optical Express? Don't think so!
The stress Optical Express put Hazel under after she complained was awful. They would call us into Cork clinic, then it would be Dublin, because Hazel couldn't drive because of her dry eyes and flashing lights I would drive her.
This went on and on, visits here, visits there, phone call after phone call. We found out this was standard procedure to run down the clock to prevent patients taking legal action.
There’s no doubt in my mind having been with Hazel every hour of the day that the awful stress you put Hazel under during her legal case with all your delaying tactics by your highly paid lawyers caused Hazels depression and ultimate death.



Indeed on her death bed I had to administer her eye drops because Hazel couldn't see her loved ones for the last time because of her red inflamed eyes caused by the surgery you did on her.
For that to be our last memory of our beloved Hazel was horrific.
Shame on you that you couldn't do the right thing for Hazel, instead put her through years of stress.
Yes Mr Kanackal Alex George, I hold you 100% responsible for the problems your surgery caused, and you Optical Express, 100% responsible for the awful stress you put Hazel under after the surgery.
I was with Hazel all through those terrible years,and I know that Alex George and Optical Express are entirely responsible for her death because of their actions.