Confirm text replacement with template category text
All the text in the message will be deleted and replaced by text from category template.
|01 Jan 2022 09:43 #556|
A brief recap
Posted 1 January 2020: 'I am confident that 2020 will ultimately be OUR year… with two good reasons for my prediction tucked in my pocket until I am able to publish - one hopefully by the end of February or March...’
The first reason was that GOC case examiners had referred business registrant Optical Express to a Fitness to Practice (FtP) hearing in September, which was then postponed until November due to legal challenges; and the second, the expectation that a refractive surgeon would be referred to a Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service MPTS) FtP hearing by General Medical Council (GMC) case examiners before the end of 2020.
Posted 1 January 2021: ‘Unfortunately last year didn’t quite go the way I'd expected - in more ways than one, but there is good news on the horizon…’
As some readers may recall, Optical Express eventually successfully ‘legalled’ their way out of their GOC Fitness to Practice hearing, whilst my repeated requests for transparency from the organisation since (asking for reasons for their decision to close the case) have all been refused.
And whilst the GMC case examiners did indeed decide that the aforementioned refractive surgeon should be referred to a Fitness to Practice hearing, expected by June 2021, due to the first lockdown (and other reasons to be disclosed at a later date), with a backlog of hearings to plough through, the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Services (MPTS) put this back to 2022.
I am not able to publish the scheduled dates until the MPTS publicly list online, and I am also withholding the name of the surgeon until that time, but I can at least assure you that the hearing is within sight (unlike much else for too many readers).
Meanwhile, I believe it highly likely that GOC case examiners will refer Optical Express to another FtP hearing by the end of this year, not least thanks to the many damaged patients who allowed My Beautiful Eyes Foundation to forward their complaints to the GOC, and others who did so directly.
If interested in reading more about the above, scroll back to read the earlier NYD posts in full - and consider 2022 the new 2020, at least so far as this industry is concerned!
Sadly however, as a result of the guaranteed publicity that would have ensued had both these hearings gone ahead in 2020/21, I have no doubt that thousands more people would have avoided suffering the many downplayed risks of unregulated refractive eye surgery.
|05 Dec 2021 21:36 #555|
Two days after this photo was taken on 25 November, I became quite sick and needed medical treatment, a result of sheer exhaustion, exacerbated by standing outside in almost freezing temperatures at recent weekly demos.
Those closest to me know that I rarely take a break, not just because I’m passionate about my work, but because there is no one else willing or able to take on what has become such a gargantuan task: opposing an unregulated and wealthy industry that has more snakes in its midst than the head of Medusa.
My work for the last 10 years has undoubtedly taken a toll on my health, but I just want to reassure everyone that I’m not ready to give up, and having been unable to work for more than a week, fed up with bed rest and bored with Netflix, I’m itching to get back to it
Because until the government and reluctant regulators take this massive scandal seriously, and support the victims not the perpetrators, this fight has to continue, not just here in the UK, but globally.
So to the participants who haven’t yet grasped the fact that I don’t take prisoners, the individuals and organisations enabling this corrupt industry to damage people’s eyes and lives, be it passively or actively, I put you on notice that you are ALL at risk of being publicly named and shamed - some of you already on my (s)hit list and long overdue for exposure!
And, as many who have tried to similarly intimidate me over the years know too well (including one law firm I accused of putting their greed for exorbitant fees above the interests of their clients), heavyweight legal threats of defamation are water off a ducks back, because as long as I’m telling the truth, you won’t win!
Whilst unfortunately for the next few weeks I have to stay out of the cold, and need to rest as much as possible to regain my health, I’ll at least be back in my office this week, albeit at a much slower pace for a while.
Meanwhile, for those who are questioning why, after so many years, I am now publicly campaigning outside Optimax aka Ultralase premises, I will explain in due course.
You’ll enjoy the story - I know Optical Express boss David Moulsdale is revelling in it!
|09 Jun 2021 21:23 #554|
wish Id avoided Optical Express
They never tell you what you are signing when they ask for your signature, on top of that they ask for it when you have eye drops in o cannot read anything, then they use it against you by adding it to records when you complain about anything, be it refunds or their surgery botchups. anyone reading this take this as a big warning and avoid all eye surgery especially avoid Optical Express, best thing you will ever do. Stick with glasses whatever lies they tell you it is not worth the risks.
|21 May 2021 17:35 #553|
'I sometimes wish more NHS hospitals would spin off their eye units.'
I trust that you are not suggesting NHS hospitals should spin off to unethical companies like Optical Express and Optimax, owned by psychopathic businessmen only interested in profit
|20 May 2021 20:42 #552|
Andrew Ramsay / NHS outsourcing
'ACES, founded in 2007, is an independent provider of an NHS Eye Service where patients are able to receive eye care in the community from Consultant Ophthalmic Surgeons. Our aim is to provide ophthalmic care of the highest standards in a community setting that is convenient and comfortable for our patients.’www.aces-eyeclinic.co.uk
Consultant ophthalmologists Neil Johnson and Clifford Jakeman sold their company to David Moulsdale in January, enabling and supporting Optical Express' insidious entry into the NHS cataract surgery market!
Whilst Moulsdale’s purchase of Anglia Community Eye Service should scare the sh*t out of everyone concerned - not least the patients, I wonder how Johnson and Jakeman’s colleagues feel about their newly bonded relationship with Optical Express!
In addition to the two featured money-grubbers, these are the ophthalmic consultant surgeons listed on the website:
Mr Andrew Ramsay BSc MBBS FRCOphth...'
I am an eye surgeon.
Andrew Ramsay was given a warning and found guilty of misconduct for dishonesty in 2016 (see MPTS). These warnings only last for 5 years on the LRMP so it would not appear now i believe.
On another note, I would say that efficient eye care is sometimes impossible in an NHS hospital due to daft managers appplying blanket rules to all areas of the hospital. Sometimes, private providers can just do it better, mostly because they are independent. You might therefore also notice that NHS Trusts that only do eyes (eg MEH) get to be quite efficient at delivering care, because they make their own rules. It's a shame really. I sometimes wish more NHS hospitals would spin off their eye units. Eye departments rarely rely on much of the hospital's infrastructure like in-patient wards, intensive care, etc etc.
|22 Apr 2021 19:16 #551|
Subject: Re Optical Express
Date: 21 April 2021 at 18:36:35 BST
Following my own debilitating laser eye surgery at Optimax in 2011, discovering that I was not a 'rare case’ - as owner Russell Ambrose had assured me I was, I launched My Beautiful Eyes Foundation in January 2012.
As patient advocate, over the last ten years I have helped and advised many thousands of people damaged by refractive surgery (not just at OE), and as campaigner, I continue to work closely with John McDonnell MP, calling for government regulation of this industry, which you will be surprised to learn is not regulated.
I am therefore disappointed to see someone in your influential position promoting Optical Express on YouTube, and can only assume that you were unaware of the truth when you agreed to advertise this corrupt company, responsible for damaging so many thousands of people’s eyes and lives.
Ne’er a truer word spoken when you said: ‘I'm not an expert in this whole world of eye care…’, and I humbly suggest that you should have kept this in mind and performed due diligence before fizzing with ill placed praise for medical matters that you have no knowledge or experience of.
And, with respect, perhaps incredibly stupid, short sighted, and ignorant, to base judgement of invasive eye surgery on superficial glossy presentation: 'the quality of the facilities [gave you] great confidence that what goes on here would really be first rate.’
Read Olive’s story, sadly many more like her: 'www.opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk/ind...r-sudheer-dhanireddy
• The majority of patients damaged by this company, and others, are forced to seek expensive aftercare from the NHS (something fundamentally wrong with Optical Express given NHS cataract surgery contracts - begging the question, should future damaged patients sue the NHS or Optical Express?).
• Optical Express does not abide by the Refractive Surgery standards published by Royal College of Ophthalmologists, albeit unenforceable: www.rcophth.ac.uk/standards-publications...ve-surgery-standards
Instead they wrote their own, not endorsed by the GMC, GOC, or RCOphth (See CEO Kathy Evans’ email below)
NB: Appointed as lay advisor to the Refractive Surgery Standards Working Group in 2016, I was removed at the behest of Optical Express owner David Moulsdale. (Evidence disclosed under my SARs to OE and RCOphth)
• There are very few Optical Express surgeons who do not have multiple legal claims against them, their Medical Director Dr David Teenan near the top of the leader board. Hundreds already settled out of court, often with NDAs.
• ALL staff are paid commissions on sales of completed surgeries.
• Optical Express have a history of putting various premises into administration, writing off multi millions in owed taxes, and reopening under slightly different names: Bridgewater Eye Hospital in Manchester a case in point. You’re a businessman, take a look at Companies House for details.
As you wear glasses the company will undoubtedly have offered you free refractive lens exchange surgery, which of course you will have had to refuse as Mayor. However, if you are so convinced that what goes on in Optical Express’ pretty new store will be 'first rate', I am offering to personally pay for you to have lens replacement surgery with the company, giving you the opportunity to put your (my) money where your mouth is. My only condition that I get to choose your surgeon.
In the meantime, I ask you to perform belated due diligence, and perhaps let me introduce you to some of the many people in the West Midlands left irreparably damaged by Optical Express, all now dependent on the NHS, and direct you to at least six law firms representing their damaged customers.
And should Optical Express try to deny any of the above, ask owner David Moulsdale why he has never attempted to sue me for defamation, yet spent in excess of £1mil trying to silence my website: search.theregister.com/?q=sasha+rodoy
So much more, but for now you might find these YouTube videos of interest:
Andy, once you have checked that all of the above is true, will you stand by your statement, ‘Oh, it's great news isn’t it for the city to have this investment…’, or will you withdraw your support for this company?
I look forward to your response.
Sasha Rodoy | My Beautiful Eyes Foundation
Patient Advocate & Campaign Manager
Subject: RE: FODO standards
Date: 13 December 2017 at 15:29:45 GMT
Thank you for your email.
We took the view that the draft Multi-disciplinary Professional Standards produced by members of the Optical Confederation had the potential to confuse patients and health care professionals as they contradictied the RCOphth standards which were published on 4th April 2017.
We advised the Optical Confederation that we could not endorse their work and, rather than recommending specific changes, we encouraged them to support the RCOphth document. The final standards published by members of the Optical Confederation in June 2017 are markedly different from those that the GMC refer to in its letter of 9th March 2017.
The GMC refers to the RCOphth standards on its website www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/29160.asp and we believe that these standards should be followed.
Kathy Evans | Chief Executive
The Royal College of Ophthalmologists