Confirm text replacement with template category text
All the text in the message will be deleted and replaced by text from category template.
|28 Jan 2019 20:53 #14|
The Daily Mail really should know by now that an ophthalmologist is a surgeon (like Bobby Qureshi), regulated by the GMC (if we’re lucky), while the General Optical Council (GOC) regulate optometrists (opticians)!
Which reminds me, I wonder if OE gave John Margetts his job back when his twelve months suspension ended last year?
I’m guessing not, and have reason to believe that he was paid to keep quiet at the GOC Fitness to Practise hearing in 2017, not least because his representative didn’t say a word in his defence about the sales tactics employed by OE, and the pressure on optometrists to sell, sell, sell!
And one day I might be able to tell you about another optometrist who should have gone before a GOC tribunal for sexual assault, as alleged by a patient. But with his brother in a favoured position within a certain corrupt Scottish company, the victim was told it would be dealt with in-house.
So many stories yet to tell, and all of them true - eh Tweedles
|23 May 2018 14:36 #13|
Somewhat belatedly I admit, in October 2014 I complained to the GOC (General Optical Council) about Swati Malkan, the Optimax optometrist who recommended me for lasek surgery in 2011
My submission to the GOC involved many weeks of hard work and lots of research, but in a nutshell I alleged that Ms Malkan failed to fully inform me and recommended me for treatment that was wholly unsuitable.
In fact she told me that I was suitable ONLY for lasek, yet on the day she was contradicted by Dr Wilbert Hoe, who asked me to choose lasek or lasik just minutes before my surgery!
I will never forget my panicked reaction, and sometimes question my sanity as to why I argued against my gut instinct screaming at me to walk away.
Seven years later, knowing so much more than I did then, I know that Dr Hoe was provably negligent by operating on a patient, obviously very stressed and anxious, who he knew had not been fully informed, by him or the optom Swati Malkan.
And I could add to this list of points of negligence simply by quoting from the GMC guidance on good medical practise. But thankfully Dr Wilbert Hoe is now retired and no longer registered with the GMC, so no point in my wasting my time.
The GOC Case Examiners' decision in December 2015 disappointingly determined that there was no realistic prospect of establishing that Ms Malkan’s fitness to practise was impaired, and so she didn’t even get a smacked hand.
I unsuccessfully appealled the decision.
But unfortunately for Swati Malkan, in January 2017 my second Subject Access Request (SAR) sent to Russell Ambrose (Optimax owner) disclosed an incredible amount of information that had been deliberately withheld under my first SAR in 2016.
This disclosure horrifyingly proved that I had been given unsuitable treatment, that Ms Malkan had not fully informed me, and shockingly, that Russell Ambrose unarguably knew this prior to our first meeting - on Friday 13 May 2011 - when he told me that I was, 'a rare case’!
Russell had no inkling of quite how rare I would turn out to be, unwilling to be bought by him or David Moulsdale at any price to stay quiet about this scandalous unregulated industry that repeatedly ruins eyes and lives to feed the greed of corrupt and psychopathic businessmen!
I contacted the GOC in March 2017 and they agreed to look at the new evidence and review the original decision.
Last week the GOC advised me that the Case Examiners had reached their decision and it would be sent to me as soon as the details had been checked. I didn’t hold my breath, too many disappointments over the years.
This afternoon I received their decision, and, as I think you may have guessed, it was great news!
As it’s not yet a matter of public record I won't go into detail, but the Case Examiners agreed that there is a public interest in reviewing the original decision not to refer Swati Malkan to the Fitness To Practise Committee.
They have directed that a full (stage two) review be carried out, and I sincerely hope that this will lead to a Fitness to Practise hearing, as with Optical Express optom John Margetts in August 2017. Not least because the entire MBE/OERML story began with Swati Malkan, and had she not recommended me for lasek then I wouldn’t be talking to you now.
And I urge every damaged patient to complain to the GOC about the optom who recommended you for surgery, and to the GMC about the surgeon, and to send an SAR to the clinic where you were damaged.
In my case at least, SARs can provide a lot of fun, as did the results of one that reached me today, filled with highly enlightening and entertaining information. And to the predicted dismay of a number of people, I will be publishing its content!
Meanwhile, some of you have been unable to post on OERML website forum for two weeks. This is because I hadn’t realised that the site was overdue for urgent technical updates, now being fixed, which is why I am thrusting out my begging bowl asking for contributions toward the costs.
It’s not only the websites that have to be paid for, and I thank the few people who understand this and have generously contributed to the endless work of MBE Foundation and OERML.
As little as £5-10 will be very much appreciated...
Click here www.opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk/index.php/donate.html
|11 Aug 2017 17:18 #12|
Fourth and final day of hearing...
John Margetts' GOC registration has been suspended for twelve months!
I went straight from the hearing to BBC Westminster studios (bumped into a couple of faces you’ll recognise) and recorded an interview for Points West this evening - broadcast scheduled @ 6.30pm this evening. (Don’t worry about missing it because I will upload to YouTube later or tomorrow and post link)
It’s been a great week, during which I gathered a lot of information (passed on to lawyers representing my clients) and have sooooo much to tell you!
But not tonight, because I’ll be opening a bottle of champagne to celebrate
|10 Aug 2017 20:18 #11|
Third day at the GOC
After reviewing the evidence and listening to witnesses in person, this afternoon the Fitness To Practise Committee upheld that John Margetts was, '4.b. Dishonest in that you knew that the information you provided to Patient A [BBC journalist] was incorrect’, the only one of the allegations he had denied.
However, the GOC process is more complex than a court hearing, and there were more stages yet to come...
The next was for the Committee to determine whether his fitness to practise was impaired, and, although I believed they could not reach any other conclusion, until I heard them say it I held my breath - not long enough for OE no doubt!
I think this photo - taken after the decision was announced late this afternoon - says it all!
Back tomorrow for both parties to give their submissions before the Committee decide whether or not John Markets will be struck off.
Again, I don’t believe they have any option, be it permanently or for a limited time, but we’ll find that out tomorrow.
The hearing is open to the public, so if you’re interested in coming along (wearing OERML T shirt!) contact me this evening for more info!
|08 Aug 2017 17:15 #10|
An entertaining and highly informative time away from my office today
I will detail events later, because I don’t have time to decipher my notes before BBC TV Points West at approx 6.27 this evening!
|07 Aug 2017 18:36 #9|
Following the BBC broadcast of their journalist's filmed consultation with Optical Express optometrist John Margetts, I made a complaint to the GOC, and he was suspended from 5 November 2015.
His Fitness to Practise hearing begins tomorrow - open to the public (and press)
'A substantive hearing will be held at The General Optical Council, 10 Old Bailey, London EC4M 7NG and will commence at 09:00 hrs on Tuesday 8 August 2017 to Friday 11 August 2017.
The Council alleges that in relation to you, Mr John Margetts, a registered optometrist, on a date unknown prior to 7 September 2015:
You failed to provide Patient A with sufficient information about the risks of laser eye surgery to enable him to make an informed decision;
You failed to provide Patient A with information about laser eye surgery in a clear and understandable manner;
You made the following comments to Patient A about laser eye surgery:
a. You stated that refractive eye surgery is "mandatory for the replacement of the Harrier F-35 ...and also for the Apache helicopter pilots and gunners", or words to that effect;
b. You stated that "it is 25 times more accurate than your glasses", or words to that effect;
c. You stated that the RAF "found that landing on aircraft carriers is 95% better trapping number two wire when you've been lasered because it enhances your peripheral sight", or words to that effect;
d. When questioned by Patient A about whether the RAF "do [refractive surgery] as standard", you stated that "you have to have it. If you are on big engine stuff, you're alright but the new visor systems that they use where you can see 40 miles away, the laser tracking systems that shine off your corneas mustn't have a parallax error, so you have to be lasered to match the visor, so it's now called a biometric enhancement", or words to that effect;
e. You stated that "that's what this organisation is. All systems they use, it's US Navy and NASA stuff, all of it", or words to that effect;
f. You stated that "you never get 20/20 vision. You get much, much, much, much better vision than that", or words to that effect;
You stated that "it sits back with intermolecular gravitational traction, which is twenty thousand times the power of superglue", or words to that effect;
You stated "the iDesign one is pure RAF and it's the big peripheral", or words to that effect;
i. You stated that "the iDesign one does this for twilight driving after two months because it realigns the molecular structure within the cornea itself which allows 10% more light to go through the cornea without being scattered", or words to that effect;
j. When questioned by Patient A about whether laser eye surgery is "100% safe", you responded, "yes";
4. The statements set out at 3(a)-(j) were :
a. Misleading in that the information you provided to Patient A was incorrect;
b. Dishonest in that you knew that the information you provided to Patient A was incorrect;
And by virtue of the facts set out above, your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of your misconduct.'