logo6

Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC: BBC News & Press

BBC Radio Sheffield... 26 Feb 2019 15:47 #11

  • admin
  • admin's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Posts: 934
  • Karma: 6
  • Thank you received: 152
Let's try this again :kiss:



My interview pre-recorded earlier, now scheduled on Drivetime with Howard Pressman @ 16.08

Live link www.bbc.co.uk/radiosheffield
Attachments:

BBC Radio Sheffield postponed! 26 Feb 2019 10:42 #12

  • admin
  • admin's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Posts: 934
  • Karma: 6
  • Thank you received: 152
Attachments:

BBC Radio Sheffield tomorrow! 25 Feb 2019 20:56 #13

  • admin
  • admin's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Posts: 934
  • Karma: 6
  • Thank you received: 152
2019 hasn't been a good year for Optical Express so far, and I promise it's going to get worse at 7.00am tomorrow morning :kiss:

Listen to Toby Foster at Breakfast on BBC Radio Sheffield - interview with OE damaged patient Mohammed Razaq, MP Toby Perkins, and me!

Live link www.bbc.co.uk/radiosheffield

For those who miss it, I will be uploading the interviews to YouTube later...
Attachments:

Another Mail advertorial 17 Feb 2019 13:34 #14

  • admin
  • admin's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Posts: 934
  • Karma: 6
  • Thank you received: 152
After reading this article at 11pm last night I was left speechless, not even angry, but I didn’t immediately post the link as I was too shocked to comment!


www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-67123...ve-worse-vision.html

So here’s the truth :kiss:

On 7 February - whilst at the MPTS hearing in Manchester - journalist Thea Jourdan contacted me, asking for information and case studies for her intended article about lens exchange, which she told me would be a ‘balanced piece’.

I explained that when Optical Express settled their £21.5 million legal claim against her employers, Associated Newspapers Ltd, there was allegedly an agreement with ANL that they wouldn’t publish anything about me in the future. (Read 4 Feb post for more details)

I therefore told Thea that I’d be very happy to give her everything she needed, but in return, at the very least, I expected a mention of My Beautiful Eyes Foundation, patient advocacy service and campaign for government regulation. No need to mention OERML...

She readily agreed, expressing surprise that there might be any issue with this, and we spoke a number of times, at length, and I provided plenty of detailed info and documentation - including Bruce Allan’s email...



Today's article claims, "An estimated 100,000 Britons have now had a RLE procedure in an effort to get rid of their spectacles. And, undoubtedly, the vast majority – including the celebrity ambassadors of the various companies involved – are delighted with the results…

However, Mike Burdon, president of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists, says: ‘About one in a thousand people who undergo lens replacement surgery for any reason is left with permanent vision loss due to complications such as infection or bleeding into the eyeball.
’”

If there are no 'contemporary figures for the numbers of refractive surgery procedures performed in the UK’, as Bruce Allan has stated, then these quoted figures are pure fantasy, and they cannot claim 'the vast majority are delighted' when there are no recorded statistics for damaged patients!

And of course celebrities are happy - Ruth Langsford a case in point - because they’re generally paid, be it with cash or free surgery!

I spoke to Thea late yesterday afternoon and she told me that she believed the article was going in, even though she hadn’t been sent the final PDF to confirm this, normally received by midday on Saturday for Sunday publication, but Mail on Sunday health editor Eve Simmons had assured her there didn’t appear to be any problem with it.

Optical Express patients Suzanne Cudden and Carl Goodman were both interviewed and photographed as the two case studies to be featured. (I told Carl they’d want him to wear a pink shirt for the pics - and they did! He refused, joking this morning that’s the reason they cut him out of the piece!)

Carl is a perfect example of the problems suffered by so many patients fitted with multifocal lenses simply to lose reading glasses.

Read his informative and well researched 'Carl G' posts here - www.opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk/ind...ve-lens-exchange-rle

More importantly, in respect of Thea’s article, Carl very recently underwent a seemingly successful explant of his right lens at MEH (Moorfields Eye Hospital).

Please note, MEH is an NHS hospital, and should not be confused with Moorfields Private, where Bruce Allan fattens his bank account by regularly removing perfectly healthy lenses from the eyes of people who trust the doctor to do them no harm!

I should perhaps also mention Julian Stevens, his colleague at MEH, and Moorfields Private, who has on occasion (and of course I have evidence of this) written to his damaged private patient’s GP and had them referred to his NHS clinic so that he didn't have to personally fund their treatment.

Last year I met with MEH CEO David Probert and MD Nick Strouthidis to discuss my concerns about Julian’s unethical behaviour (and my concerns that most Moorfields surgeons use NHS email addresses to correspond with their private patients) but nothing has been done that I’m aware of, and I’ll be returning to the subject at a later date.



ROTFLMAO - 'impartial patients’ advice’!! And Brucie is of course one of the ‘experts’ who profits from these ops!

(An educated guess that Susan Harrison - happy case study in the article - is one of Brucie’s private Moorfields patients btw)

Thea Jourdan told me last week that another journalist had been brought on board to help with the article because it was so complicated, which may have contributed to a number of errors I've noted.

For example, 'They come in a variety of types and the operations are sold under a variety of brand names including Alcon, Clarivu, Carl Zeiss and Fine Vision.’

Alcon, Carl Zeiss and Fine Vision are not operations!

And many online readers are commenting without understanding that the piece is about risky and unnecessary refractive lens exchange surgery (RLE), not to be confused with necessary cataract surgery!

I was on the train to Manchester last Thursday when we had another detailed conversation, with Thea reading out her draft for me to point out any glaring mistakes.

She was shocked when I corrected ‘hundreds of people are being treated on the NHS’, to 'many thousands of people', damaged by laser and lens surgery, because private clinics only provide twelve months post op care.

NB: I understand that Bruce Allan may offer two years, but even so, compare this with the warranty on a new car, or any other disposable commodity, because your eyes are not replaceable, no matter how long the warranty!

I was obviously very pleased when Thea told me that she’d signed off her piece with my comment that government regulation is urgently needed. She read it to me and it was perfect, no mention of Optical Express, and NO reason for ANL lawyers to object.

Hence my shock last night!

I spoke with Thea a little while ago to find out who made the decision to trash her article and translate it into yet another advertorial. She told me that the last copy she saw - although she wasn’t sent the PDF, which she normally is - included Carl Goodman’s case study, not Suzanne’s, and my quote at the end.

Thea genuinely believed that Carl and I were cut so the article would fit the space. I disagreed, and again explained why, not forgetting that this is the second Mail article about the industry featuring MBE clients recently, without any mention of my campaign for regulation etc..., and no mention that Optical Express was the surgery provider.

I pointed out that if there was shortage of space then other paragraphs could have been cut, because it is surely more important to publicise the fact that there is no regulation of the industry, that many thousands of people are damaged by risky and unnecessary procedures, that the NHS are funding aftercare for many thousands damaged by the private sector...

And this is nonsense...



Hands up anyone who's had success complaining to any of the above organisations?

Meanwhile, I am surprised that my comment ('Best rated') has not been removed as my comments generally are!



PS: I was so disgusted that I didn't even buy a hard copy for my files as I usually do.

Daily Mail 05 Feb 2019 03:05 #15

  • admin
  • admin's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Posts: 934
  • Karma: 6
  • Thank you received: 152
Yet more from the Daily Mail :kiss:


www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-66669...g-leave-regrets.html

In 2017, when Optical Express dropped their £21.5 million claim for libel and accepted a Part 36 offer of approx £150k from Associated Newspapers Ltd, a journalist advised me that as part of the settlement (off the record) the Mail would have agreed to stay away from stories directed at OE, and not give me any publicity.

When I repeated this to ANL's lawyers they denied it, but in fact, the paper reneged on their promise; that in return for all the info, documents, and witnesses I'd provided for their legal defence, they would give me a big story about my work and campaign. (And of course I have evidence of this!)

Just coincidence then that this article studiously avoids mentioning me, Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell, and My Beautiful Eyes campaign calling for government regulation of this corrupt industry.

And the Mail have also avoided naming the relevant surgeons and clinics, but I'm not so coy!



Ian Waghorne (on the right) was operated on by Dr Muhammad Kazmi at Optical Express. Case in point methinks!

Sohaib Ashraf was operated on by Dr Khalid Ikram, at Centre for Vision in Manchester, rebranded as LaserVision who now advertise seven locations, with one of their surgeons being Professor Harminder Dua, RCOphth president from 2011-2014.
www.laservision.co.uk

Khalid Ikram also operates out of Face & Eye clinic in Manchester, sold side by side with cosmetic surgery procedures.
www.faceandeye.co.uk/team/khalid-ikram-3/

Warning to anyone reading this and still considering laser eye surgery - it is NOT cosmetic!

Dr Morris Waxler spoke to the Mail...
"‘Neuropathic pain is still not acknowledged as a complication, but it definitely should be. Instead, consent forms make laser surgery sound like a piece of cake.’

He adds that surgeons don’t follow up patients enough to see the longer-term effects: ‘Most don’t follow up patients for longer than six months. Then there are the patients who are so distraught by the complications they have suffered that they never go back.

This is the only industry that creates new eye disease from previously healthy eyes.’

Dr Cynthia J MacKay, MD, a recently retired ophthalmologist from New York, is another outspoken critic.

She told Good Health she’d had her doubts about laser eye surgery from the start: ‘The cornea has more nerve endings than any other part of the body and it was obvious to me that if it was cut, the nerves would not regrow as they were before.

Also, the cornea has a poor blood supply so it is slow to heal and scar tissue will form, which will impair vision. Over the years, I saw many patients who had been left with permanent neuropathic pain in their corneas after laser eye surgery. I’ve seen it ruin lives.

‘I know of at least 22 suicides in the U.S. I’ve even known of people have their eyes removed to stop the pain. Cases like these happen because doctors can’t get rid of this type of pain, the nerves regrow and misfire and go crazy.

Yes, there are people who are happy with LASIK, but what they don’t realise is that having the procedure has put them at greater risk of retinal detachment and early cataracts,’ she adds. ‘It’s a very big scandal.’

Bruce Allan, of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists, is robust in his rebuttal of all this. ‘It is untrue that laser surgery weakens the cornea and one in three surgeons who perform refractive surgery have had it themselves,’ he says.

It is also untrue to say refractive surgery raises the risk of retinal detachment — people who are short-sighted are more likely to get retinal detachment anyway and they are likely to have laser eye surgery, so it’s incorrect to conclude that it’s the surgery that raises the risk.’"

Bullsh*t Bruce!

"And if things do go wrong, ‘then they can be fixed — we have good solutions,’ says Bruce Allan, a consultant ophthalmic surgeon at Moorfields Eye Hospital [and Moorfields Private] in London and a spokesman for the Royal College of Ophthalmologists."

'Good solutions' Bruce?

Then I humbly suggest that you share these with your colleagues at Moorfields Eye Hospital, unable to fix many of the damaged patients referred to their NHS clinics following the devastating results of unnecessary and unregulated laser and lens replacement surgery - me included!

The Royal College of Ophthalmologists has published professional standards for refractive surgery...'

ROTFLMAO!

'...and it’s very safe in the UK now as these are enforced by the regulator.’

Do tell Bruce, which regulator would that be?

And if so safe, then why do damaged patients continue to contact me day in, day out?

And remind me, who was it you plotted with, via email and cosy weekend phone calls, discussing how to remove me from my position as lay adviser on the The Royal College of Ophthalmologists Refractive Surgery Standards Working Group?

Let me think... of course, it was David Moulsdale!

'Incestuous' is the only word I know of to best describe this industry in a nutshell (globally)!

NB: The Mail's claim that Ian Waghorne had no legal recourse simply because he signed the consent form is misleading, as every single person currently in litigation signed a consent form, as did Stephanie Holloway, and the many hundreds of others who successfully settled with OE et al.
Attachments:

Bobby Qureshi & London Eye Hospital 04 Feb 2019 22:33 #16

  • admin
  • admin's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Posts: 934
  • Karma: 6
  • Thank you received: 152
I did promise you there'd be a lot of publicity about the uregulated refractive surgery industry this year, but I wasn't expecting so much so soon!


www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-66411...d-robbing-blind.html

The GMC's medical expert, Dr Niall Patton, will start presenting his evidence to the MPTS panel on Thursday, and I'll be there :kiss:
Attachments:

Another OE scam! 04 Feb 2019 22:31 #17

  • admin
  • admin's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Posts: 934
  • Karma: 6
  • Thank you received: 152
Even worse than an advertorial - masquerading as journalism from unprincipled Trinity Mirror employee Molly Holt, promoting OE's sickening Thanks A Million campaign...



'The leading eye care specialist has already improved the lives of 44 NHS employees, 39 police officers, 37 paramedics and 4 firefighters to date as part of its Thanks a Million campaign, which launched in July 2017.
Having reached the half way point in its donation pledge, Optical Express is now reaching out once more to emergency service and NHS workers, as it looks for more deserving people to benefit from free treatment
.'
www.mirror.co.uk/money/nhs-staff-emergen...ice-workers-13938169

No need to contact the author or her employers to ask if the article was classified as news or an advertorial, and if ££ changed hands, because the answer was staring me in the face!



Go to the Mirror page, click on hyperlink [2] and you will read,
'What are affiliate schemes?

Affiliate schemes enable online retailers to track the source of their sales on the internet, and pay a commission to the websites that supply them – the objective is to generate more sales for the retailer and to allow the referring website to generate their own revenue from commission
'

Google 'Optical Express affiliate’ and this is currently listed in second place...


reports.tradedoubler.com/pan/program_info?program_id=244907

Back to the Daily Mirror page, click on hyperlink [3] to understand the Pay-per-click* scam that Molly Holt and her employers Trinity Mirror are involved in, to circumvent the ICO enforsement notice served on Optical Express in 2014** encouraging some of our country’s most valuable assets to risk their precious vision to Optical Express!



So when anyone clicks on hyperlink [1] - more hyperlinks throughout the piece - and completes the online form, Optical Express will see that they came from the Mirror page, with an immediate £7 commission for the Mirror, and another £50 if the person goes to a ‘free’ consultation.

So why is OE offering £50 commission to its affiliates for a consultation when the person might not book?

Duh - because OE store managers, optoms, and ‘refractive counsellors’, are all on target based commissions, and therfore rarely fail to take at least £500 deposit off anyone unlucky enough to walk through their doors for a 'free’ consultation. And unless they find OERML, most unlikely to get a refund under any circumstances, so its a win win situation for everyone bar the poor sucker who falls for this!

If OE were genuinely being charitable, why would they be paying the Mirror click fees for generating leads in an ad claiming they're giving away £1 million of free surgery?

Not forgetting that lens replacement (RLE/NLR) is not included in OE’s Thanks A Million programme, and you can bet your eyesight (too late for many!) that many of those registering for Thanks A Million will be unsuitable for laser and SOLD lens exchange - of course with a £500 discount!

Like I said, a scam, and yet another for the ASA - and probably the ICO :kiss:

*Pay-per-click (PPC), also known as cost per click (CPC), is an internet advertising model used to direct traffic to websites, in which an advertiser pays a publisher (typically a website owner or a network of websites) when the ad is clicked.
Pay-per-click - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay-per-click
** www.theregister.co.uk/2015/01/07/uk_data..._1000s_of_customers/
Attachments:

The Mirror online 02 Feb 2019 20:35 #18

  • admin
  • admin's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Posts: 934
  • Karma: 6
  • Thank you received: 152
Fake 'journalism' from the Daily Mirror :kiss:


www.mirror.co.uk/money/nhs-staff-emergen...ice-workers-13938169

And I will be asking 'Content Commercialisation Editor' Molly Holt - and her employers @Trinity Mirror - if this irresponsible article is classified as news or an advertorial. (And of course if ££ changed hands!)

Because whatever it is, they can count themselves responsible for every one of the NHS workers who will naively go for this and end up irreparably damaged, and possibly unemployed - like some of their colleagues who had surgery at Optical Express!



A continuation of OE's 'Thanks A Million Campaign' launched in 2017, this is nothing more than a scam to circumvent an ICO ruling in 2015, after complaints from people being targeted with unsolicited texts offering the chance to win free surgery.

"Andy Curry, Enforcement Group Manager at the ICO said: ‘Thousands of people who had not signed up for marketing services received these nuisance messages.

We have issued this enforcement notice as a warning to the company that using people’s data without their consent is not acceptable. Any breach of the notice would be a criminal offence.
’"
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2899808...sands-customers.html

For those who don't understand how this Optical Express scam works, it's simples!

Not only will many of the NHS Professionals be unsuitable for laser and pressured into buying lens exchange surgery instead - of course with a £500 discount for being an NHS worker - but applicants will have voluntarily given Optical Express their data who can then safely bombard them with advertising in the future, without fearing the ICO.

To any NHS worker lucky enough to have found this forum before risking unregulated refractive eye surgery at Optical Express, PLEASE dig deeper, google OERML, or contact me in person for more info: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Attachments:

ABC News San Diego 01 Feb 2019 20:15 #19

  • admin
  • admin's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Posts: 934
  • Karma: 6
  • Thank you received: 152
In today's ABC News report, an unidentified laser surgeon claims that problems are rare (as every one of us ‘rare' patients was told), and says, 'You take a million patients and do the exact same thing, and there are going to be very rare outlying circumstances.’

Think he meant to say, ‘I am lying:kiss:



'At least three Lasik patients who suffered severe complications after refractive eye surgery have ended their own lives, investigative reporter Jace Larson found. The news comes as the Lasik industry maintains the procedure is safe and effective.

It doesn’t get easier for Nancy Burleson each time she visits her son’s grave.

Burleson son died from a self-inflected gunshot wound.

His suicide note read in part, "I hope someday you can understand that I couldn't go on without my eye sight. I trusted a doctor that destroyed my eyes, imagine not being able to see the computer screen, TV, people’s faces.


'Our investigation dug into a little known FDA database that chronicles patient problems. We discovered more than 700 complaints describing post surgery pain as worse than childbirth.'

ALL unnecessary refractive procedures are risky, not just lasik, with identical problems in every country where they are performed.

Full report here...
www.10news.com/news/national/investigati...severe-complications
Attachments:

Daily Mail TV (US) 20 Jan 2019 17:44 #20

  • admin
  • admin's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Posts: 934
  • Karma: 6
  • Thank you received: 152
Global exposure of the refractive surgery scandal is gathering pace, with more press and media coverage in the last six weeks than we've had in the last six years - and I promise you, so much more to come :kiss:


www.dailymail.co.uk/video/dailymailtv/vi...tve-led-suicide.html
Attachments:

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

Your help is very much appreciated!

Amount:
© 2018 Optical Express Ruined My Life. We guarantee your anonymity unless you state otherwise. Please read our Privacy Policy and the Terms and Conditions of use of our website for full details.