Start listening@ 01:11:00 (will be uploaded to YouTube later)
I didn't know anything about this broadcast until I received a flurry of messages just after 11.30am this morning, when I immediately called the BBC. I spoke to one of Jeremy Vine's team who took a quote from me and said they'd call me at 1.00pm to talk live on air.
I was not called, my quote was not read out, and there was no mention of my campaign, or that the industry is unregulated!
Many damaged patients phoned in, and those who got through were warned they must not mention any company by name. (If you want to know the name of the surgeon Byron talked about, email me!)
Jeremy Vine also stated at the beginning of the discussion: "No companies in mind here, we're not zeroing in on anyone in particular.”
So why did he then read out what was nothing less than a promo for Optical Express, who, even though they hadn't been asked to comment, had sent in their same old hackneyed statement - claiming 99% satisfaction, blah blah... ?!
Although lacking in any real substance or facts, overall the cover wasn't too bad, but I advise Dr Sarah Jarvis do some in depth research before making any more uninformed comments and quoting nonsensical statistics!
She is a GP, not an ophthalmologist, and, without a shadow of doubt, I know far more about eye surgery than she does! Where did she get the statistics to support her claim that "less than 5%" have problems?
Dr Jarvis talked a lot of nonsense, and I think she's another Hilary Jones - a GP who pretends to know everything about every medical matter!!
She said that none of her patients have ever complained of problems after eye surgery. Sadly, countless GPs across the UK and Ireland are unable to say the same!
In my opinion, this was half an hour of valuable broadcasting time wasted. If Jeremy Vine's team had spent even an hour researching this topic, Sarah Jarvis might have thought twice before spewing such trite!
I know that complaints have been made to the BBC about the 5% claim, and allowing Optical Express to advertise.
It seems that OE are taking no notice of the ICO's warning re the spam text messages. As an OE damaged patient, receiving the texts from OE as I did again yesterday, disgusts me to the core. Unfortunately everyone who knows me and that OE damaged me, forwards their texts from OE to me. A friend I bumped into today was asking how my eyes were and as I answered , he received a spam text from OE. Least I was able to tell him how to report it.
I suspect OE would try and sell a pair of shoes to a military serviceman who'd just had his legs blown off. I guess OE are making more money out of business generated from the texts after offsetting any fine that will be imposed.
"Sasha Rodoy, 61, who has been campaigning for better regulation of the corrective surgery industry, said: ‘The only reason anybody should have these operations is if it is the only option that will stop them going blind. They are just not safe.’
A spokesman for Oculentis confirmed the firm had received four ‘incident reports’ from the MHRA.