TOPIC: Dr Kanackal Alex George
Dr Kanackal Alex George 28 Dec 2017 06:13 #41
You are trying to defend yourself which makes me nauseated to read.
I am a surgeon - a real surgeon... I am personally appalled at you and your industry, that creates new eye diseases, ruins lives, all for your monetary gain....
Monetary gain using the respected ideal of a physician, while you create new eye diseases.
All this is elective and I believe the real complications are deceptively hidden from the patient.
Side effects from refractive surgery are actually complications. If patients were fully consented, no one would have these procedures.
Hippocratic oath you have forgone.
Shame on you and what you stand for.
January 13, 1989 - January 14, 2016
My son, Max Burleson Cronin, committed suicide 1-14-16, at the young age of 27 years old,as a result of devastating complications from elective laser eye surgery. Max was an Iraqi War Veteran and proudly served his country against Al Quada on the battle front. Max had a simple desire not to have to wear glasses. He believed Laser Eye Surgery was a safe procedure. He had an "enhancement" of PRK. He developed severe corneal hazing resulting in blindness, severe constant eye pain, dry eyes, and other complications. Efforts to get help through the VA were not successful. He was unable to continue his classes or work, resulting in financial collapse of his household. He left suicide letters stating his eyes were ruined and thus his life.
Alex George to Sasha Rodoy 27 Dec 2017 11:28 #43
Well let’s see the proof that makes you state that my statements were ‘Not true’. Publish the two reports that I specified.
You not only made false allegations and false accusations against me without verification but you are the only one who published the lies to the public via your OERML website and Facebook pages which were moderated by you. The Courts will explain to you the meaning of ‘libel’.
Basically, an Adult of reasonable intelligence has a duty to read the Consent form and ask relevant questions too if you are undergoing a surgical procedure. You asked for distance correction and the Consent form should have clearly mentioned that you would lose your reading vision. Publish the Consent form and let the people decide whether you used your normal intelligence at the right time or are you just another ‘#Me too’ person.
If you haven’t noticed I am A ‘self employed refractive Surgeon’. The relevant people in OE are aware of my revulsion at your misdeeds against me. You initiated my reaction.
I shall happily meet up with you and Hazel Jones’ family at any convenient opportunity but only after you publically apologise to me, publish your retractions and provide proof to back your accusations that I made untrue statements.
admin: I am busy today but will endeavour to reply tomorrow
Alex George to Sasha Rodoy 26 Dec 2017 21:34 #44
3. All the Medical Experts involved, including your own Expert*, concluded that my actions to treat you were appropriate, the surgery was done flawlessly and results obtained were quite satisfactory.
- Not true
Please publish the proof that makes you say that my statement is 'Not true'. Kindly print the Joint Statement of Medical Experts in the Paul Holmes Case to support your statement
5. Your complaints to the General Medical Council against me and the accusations of my not having appropriate Indemnity cover have been investigated and rejected. - Not true
Please publish the results of the GMC investigation GMC ref: C1-1714050444 which supports your contention that my statement is 'Not true'.
Its very easy to make comments when you don't have to provide the proof - right. Just blab what you want as loud as you can and some of the mud will stick - right?*
*Solicitors considering potential libel claim against Alex George.
Libel involves publishing and publicising to the public. Look closely and you might notice who has been putting lies, innuendo and insinuations in the notice of the public and therefore who is guilty of Libel? **
If you have any shred of courage and honesty put this email into your OERML and Facebook pages, verbatim. I could also use some publicity. BTW, I am still looking forward to my email of yesterday to be published. What happened, 'Cat got your tongue? ***
And while you are at it, kindly publish your Consent form that you signed when you had your Laser surgery with Optimax. Lets us all see what you signed under the paragraph that informed you that you would need Reading glasses just as all patients above the age of 40 years do after LVC for distance correction. I believe that you protested that you signed the Consent form 'but you didn't think the instruction would apply to you'- really?****
admin: This is not about me Alex, this is your thread
* I publish nothing without having proof to back it up. Interestingly I notice that you have not denied the numbers of Px I claim are suing you, although you still have a way to go to catch up with the likes of David Teenan and Dimitris Kazakos on the leaderboard!
** Libel is in fact ‘a false statement’! Which is why no-one has sued me, especially the corrupt company you work for!
*** You seemingly have yet to learn that my tongue is sharper and more dangerous than any cat, but yesterday I took a rare day off from working, hence the delay in approving your previous post. And I have courage and honesty in abundance when it comes to dealing with your sickening industry. NB: You didn’t send an email btw, you posted on this forum, but I will copy to Facebook as you have asked.
**** I was aged 57 when I had lasek - with perfect near vision (& beautiful healthy eyes with clear white sclera), my trade off for having been short sighted since the age of 14. But just like every other damaged patient I was not fully informed - and could not even see the consent form that I signed shortly before surgery. Earlier this year, a Subject Access Request (SAR) to Optimax disclosed internal email correspondence providing evidence that I should not have been given the ops that I was. You really should do some more reading about me if you want to keep up with the facts!
I will be happy to continue this conversation in public, but rather than you continuing to embarrass yourself on my sites - followed by many thousands of people worldwide - and doubtlessly incurring the wrath of David Moulsdale, I invite you to meet with me in the new year to discuss in person.
And perhaps you would consider meeting with Hazel Jones’ partner and children in Ireland?
Alex George to Sasha Rodoy 25 Dec 2017 08:48 #45
Well done! Now be truthful and honest and publish ALL the responses on this topic - both positive and negative.
I have always done the best for my patients using the current level of technology (which continually improves) and to the best of my ability, informed them myself and through detailed Consent forms of the drawbacks and benefits of the surgeries that I have conducted. That includes Hazel Jones surgery and I have never wilfully ‘damaged’ anyone.
I challenge you to print this email too - without redactions.
Dr Kanackal Alex George 25 Dec 2017 07:07 #46
I thought it fair to allow Dr Alex George his very own thread
For those of you lucky enough not to have had him operate on your precious eyes, Dr Kanackal Alex George is better known simply as Dr Alex George.
NB: This post is dedicated to Hazel Jones’ bereaved family, spending their first xmas without her.
“From: Alex George <[edited]@hotmail.com>
Subject: Fw: False Allegations, Baseless Accusations and Defamation
Date: 25 November 2017 at 15:17:32 GMT
Mr Paul Holmes and Ms Sasha Rodoy,
Mr Holmes by now you must have received the information that,
1. Your litigation against me has failed
2. Your legal aid had been withdrawn during the course of the case
3. All the Medical Experts involved, including your own Expert*, concluded that my actions to treat you were appropriate, the surgery was done flawlessly and results obtained were quite satisfactory. *Not true
4. Your complaints to the Irish Medical Council against me and the accusations of my not having appropriate Indemnity cover have been investigated and rejected.
5. Your complaints to the General Medical Council against me and the accusations of my not having appropriate Indemnity cover have been investigated and rejected. Not true
The evidence of my having appropriate Indemnity cover during your Surgery was forwarded to your Solicitors in January 2017, yet you sent your threatening letter on 07th March and I have appended it below thiscommunication. My reply to your letter,dated 11th March, again appended below, was sent to my Solicitors with the permission to forward it to you and your solicitors but I am not aware if you read it. Now that you have lost your case against me, it is appropriate that you are made aware of my sentiments about you and Ms Sasha Rodoy. Sasha Rodoy, having been misinformed by you, made a false allegation in her OERML web site, see attachment of 18th July 2017, that I had no Indemnity, without seeking proof or waiting for the IMC and GMC to conclude their investigations. Paul Holmes, you have done wrong by telling a lie to her and she has propagated that lie in public media. I have taken legal opinion and am assured that both of you are culpable and open to civil action.
I look forward to the publicity!
In another matter, that of Hazel Jones, Sasha Rodoy, you have posted a video on your OERML website (1.46 minutes into the video posted on 22nd July 2017 at 20:18 pm)*, see the second attachment, accusing me of having done wrong, again without any evidence. That case was under trial when Hazel Jones unfortunately passed away. By insinuating** that I was the sole/partial cause of Hazel's death I am accusing you of making false accusations just as you made false allegations based on Paul Holmes lies to you. I have taken legal advice on that case too and the lawyers conclusions are similar.
*See ‘OERML | In Memory of Hazel Jones’ YouTube video. **Definitely not an ‘insinuation’.
In conclusion, I accuse both you, Paul Holmes and you, Sasha Rodoy of being irresponsible in forming conclusions before establishing the truth and propagating that falsehood to the general public, directly and indirectly. Since I treat hundreds of patients, your actions are a disservice to them as it prejudices the results of my clinical work, by spreading outright lies about my service, in addition to maligning and discrediting me without any proof of misdeed on my part.* Both of you have exhibited a lack of basic consideration that I am a human being too, just as my patients are. I too have feelings and hurt when falsely accused and maligned.**
*How much more proof do I need than the evidence and medical reports from so many of his patients left with irreparably damaged eyes?
**Diddums! He needs to experience having his eyes and life ruined, and then see how hurt he - and his family - feels!
In the very least, both of you owe me an apology and Sasha Rodoy, you need to publish a retraction of your false allegations and accusations against me in your OERML web-site and Facebook pages. You have no right to make any statement against me or that I 'damaged' any patient unless backed by clinical evidence and the judgement of a Court of Law.
No retraction - and my response to his suggestion that I owe him an apology unprintable! Dr Alex George currently has THIRTEEN legal claims against him that I am personally aware of. Legal firms representing the damaged patients happy to provide confirmation should he want to dispute this fact. This does not include a far higher number unable to get legal representation for various reasons - NOT because they don’t have a case!
Further you Sasha Rodoy, selectively moderate contributions to your website and therefore wilfully misinform the public. if you dispute that charge I challenge you to post both Paul Holmes letter of 07th March and my response of 11th March in its entirety, without any redactions, in your OERML web site.
I give you both a month to apologise and publish the retractions however I will reserve the right to initiate legal action at all times. I shall also send the contents of this communication to the Labour leader Jeremy Corbin and the Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell who need to know about your misdeeds against me.
Kindly acknowledge receipt of this email and inform if you want it in hard copy, posted to your address. Sasha Rodoy, you would need to send me the address to post it to.
Acknowledged - no need for hard copy!
Dr Kanackal Alex George.
Self Employed Refractive Ophthalmic Surgeon”
Note that Alex George has written from his personal email address, without support from Optical Express or a solicitor!
From: Alex George <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: 11 March 2017 23:50
Subject: Paul Holmes
Dear Conrad and Anthony,
I am, admittedly, a bit surprised that the Claimant, Paul Holmes has written to you directly rather than through his Solicitors. See his letter below. His intention becomes clear in his last paragraph demanding 'negotiations,' couched with the threat to complain to the GMC, IMC, journalists, the Daily Mail and Sasha Rodoy through her OERML website. It is patently obvious that he is trying to extract benefits through blackmail. I am going to address each of the points raised in his letter.
Indemnity. The attached Certificate of professional Indemnity by the MDU covers the period of the claimants surgery. Further, I have additional retroactive indemnity cover by Optical Express. The GMC and the IMC would therefore not give Paul Holmes the time of day if he went to them. I am not responsible for the information or misinformation in any letter from my previous Solicitors.
Other Codes of Misconduct under IMC Acts. Paul Holmes needs to elaborate on the Acts of the IMC I have violated. His threats do not impress me.
Sasha Rodoy and her website 'Optical Express Ruined My Life'. - This lady was not operated upon by Optical Express but by Optimax, yet she has named her website deceptively, to discredit Optical Express for reasons that I am not privy to. As the moderator of her website, she only publishes complaints from dissatisfied patients and selectively excludes all positive comments and reports from patients who are happy with their refractive surgeries. Anybody reading the reports on her website, therefore, gets a picture of dire doom and gloom, with the impression that refractive surgery uses unregulated equipment and procedures. Au contraire, the actual practice is much tighter than those implemented in the NHS and as a previous Consultant in the NHS, I know this from personal experience. In my opinion, she is not doing any favours to refractive surgery patients either because even if they have the potential of achieving a satisfactory outcome, they end up creating a purgatory of lifelong dissatisfaction with their surgeries.
I surmise that her campaign of vilification of the industry is misguided and impotent* because I am as busy now with grateful patients as I was in 2012 and the years since.
*Au contraire Dr Alex George! Not misguided - and most definitely not impotent, as David Moulsdale et al will tell you!
The Claimant's clinical course. - Drs Best, Lavin and Kervik have clearly stared that Paul Holmes eye examinations were normal for the high hypermetrope that he was, that he was eligible for the surgery conducted, that the surgery was conducted flawlessly and that he had a good surgical result. His own medical expert Dr Chang has concurred to the above after the meeting of Experts. Now Paul Holmes comes out with this new diagnosis of ARMD which none of the above mentioned Experts have mentioned in their reports.
The Claimant - From what I remember of him, Paul Holmes was listed as a 'House husband' on some sort of benefits and eligible for Legal aid. To me it does not look like he earns money by doing any honest work or pays in any taxes commensurate to the benefits the 'law of the land' has accorded him.* Perhaps he hopes to establish a new revenue stream by threatening me. All I would like to tell him is - better have another think coming. Moreover, by initiating legal action he has excluded himself from further post operative procedures which he was eligible for to enable he obtained the best possible postoperative visual result. Purgatory of his own creation!
I am posting this email to all so that my sentiments are clear on this case. I would have no qualms if you decide it appropriate to send it to Paul Holmes and his Solicitors.
*Solicitors considering potential libel claim against Alex George.
[Address edited] Belfast N. Ireland
Re: Your Client Dr Alex George
7th March 2017
Mr Conrad Dixon
30 Victoria Street
I am involved at the minute with a legal battle with Optical Express and (Your client) Dr Alex George which is due for High Court in Belfast on 28th March 2017.
I now write to inform you of a few things for your attention:-
I am aware that your client Dr Alex George (Surgeon), and have a letter from his last Solicitors from Dublin confirming same, confirming that Mr Alex George had no indemnity insurance at the time of both the operations he performed on me, on behalf of your company (Optical Express). My UK contract was with Optical Express (Belfast).
I am also aware of countless other operations Mr George performed during those surgery days he performed surgeries on me - let alone the numerous other operations he performed around those dates with no insurance.
I am sure I have no need to point it out to you, that according to the General Medical Council, the Irish College of Ophthalmologists, and the Irish Medical Council Act 2009 Part 50i which states - they MUST have adequate indemnity insurance to carry out surgery procedures. This does NOT state - it is a recommendation, but is a MUST which makes it obligatory for them to have the relevant insurance.
I also point out there are many other codes of conduct and professional ethics under the Irish medical council Act 2009 in which Dr Alex George failed me on those surgery days he saw me.
I write to inform you that there are many people and newspapers who are extremely interested in this case. I have been contacted by Sasha Roddy from Optical Express ruined my life campaign, who is ready to put me in touch with journalists nationwide including the Irish times also, she also wants a copy of this letter which confirms your client Dr Alex George had no indemnity insurance, as she is particularly interested on behalf of her parties.
To cut a long story short I had existing eye abnormalities that was failed to be diagnosed, which I was not aware I had pre ops, I paid my money to Optical Express after being guaranteed I would be glasses and contact lens free. I had the surgeries and now according to my medical expert, I now have Dry Macular Degeneration AMD (As Medico-legal report) - this, was not present pre operations. Also as well as having Dry MD I also am left with opacification in my eyes which causes blurred vision - this is a side effect of these procedures which happens as a direct result of the procedures Mr George performed on me, which they initially promised they would (they being Optical Express) but can no longer fix due to the state of my eyes your client and Optical Express left me with.
I am waiting on your reply before contacting and distributing information to Sasha and the Newspapers inc Daily Mail and Associate Newspapers along with contacting to complain heavily about your client to the General Medical Council and the Irish Medical council.
As your client is well aware these procedures did not work and I am left in a worse state than I presented myself to Optical Express and himself pre IOL surgeries. And still have to revert back to glasses and contact lenses for continuous use. Indeed both Optical Express and Dr Alex George failed me because of their negligence to ascertain my pre existing eye conditions and abnormalities - YES both parties.
I am just after what is due to me, as I feel I have been wronged and not given the service I paid for by either parties and have evidence of same to back everything I say up!
I would appreciate if you could get back to me ASAP with negotiations before I release information to press inc Daily Mail who are already interested in this case, General Medical Council, Irish Medical Council, Irish times and other bodies that could potential bring other people out of the woodwork for other possible claims against your client.
I await your reply.