Guidelines & Standards for Laser Refractive Eye Surgery
[Petition published online (now closed), its purpose to have the matter raised in Parliament, which happened under the Ten Minute Rule Bill on the 20th November 2013.]
1. The Royal College of Ophthalmologists guidelines and Standards to be tightened and enforced as the basis of a legal requirement. 2. All surgeons practising laser vision correction to be independently trained, assessed, and certified on the type of laser used. 3. The surgeon to be available for the initial assessment, operation, post op care & discharge appointment. 4. Full audited results for individual surgeons to be published annually. 5. A legally enforceable requirement for a minimum period between issue of patient consent form & operation. 6. Patient consent form to provide statistics for "possible side effects". 7. The surgeon to sign consent form confirming s/he is satisfied that the patient has been fully informed, and understood the risks, in the presence of patient and witness. 8. Commission an independent study of patients results and satisfaction measured by both qualitative & quantitative data. 9. A strict code of advertising conduct.
6 May 2014: John McDonnell and Professor Harminder Dua, President of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists, met with Health Minister Daniel Poulter to discuss the urgent need for regulation of the refractive eye surgery industry.
Dr Poulter advised that, although refractive eye surgery had not been singled out by the Keogh report, the government had decided it would be included in "the work being taken forward" by the Cosmetic Surgery Interspecialty Committee, set up by the Royal College of Surgeons.
21 December 2013: Only Government intervention will stop clinics like Optical Express damaging any more people's eyes and lives.
A My Beautiful Eyes Campaign meeting with John McDonnell MP earlier this year resulted in a positive decision regarding strategy: this followed an earlier meeting with a legal team representing a considerable number of refractive eye surgery patients left with problems due to negligence etc... who advised him of the increasing numbers in litigation and the seriousness of many of their problems. This underlined the urgency to regulate this industry.
John McDonnell is committed to the My Beautiful Eyes Campaign and under the 10 Minute Rule Bill he presented in Parliament on 20 November 2013, "Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)" was granted, with a second hearing scheduled for 28 February 2014.
Due to parliamentary process it's unlikely this will be heard on that date and therefore other measures are being taken which need the support of as many MPs as possible. We urge you to email/write to your local MP and ask them to contact John McDonnell offering their support for My Beautiful Eyes Campaign on your behalf.
A template letter has been provided for your convenience below. Please email/post to your local MP without delay - if they don't respond within TWO working days, send it again until they do! Don't be shy, remember they are working for you!
Anyone can support My Beautiful Eyes, not just those suffering with damaged eyes, so if you have a Facebook/Twitter account please post this link & template!
This is your chance to do something positive - do it fast to stop more people's eyes and lives being ruined!
Refractive Eye Surgery: A Call for an Independent Inquiry and Legislation
I am supporting Sasha Rodoy and My Beautiful Eyes campaign calling for an independent investigation into the refractive eye surgery industry and the urgent need for legislation to regulate this industry more effectively.
For some time a number of MPs have called for better regulation of this industry to tackle the serious problems that so many people have experienced: including its sales techniques, surgical standards, the scale of post op problems and the quality of aftercare.
Following a detailed investigation by Which? some years ago, in 2005 a Private Member’s Bill attempted without success to introduce more effective regulation of this industry. The problems highlighted in Parliament at that time have not gone away and have in fact increased!
John McDonnell MP presented a Ten Minute Rule Bill in Parliament on 20 November 2013, urging the Government to establish an independent inquiry into the refractive eye surgery industry and to call for more effective legislation to regulate the industry.
A recent Which? report shows the industry remains uncontrolled whilst patients continue to suffer.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, which is so important to me and tens of thousands more.
NB: If you are a damaged patient please provide details of your experience
Please support the Campaign for regulation by donating to My Beautiful Eyes Foundation costs - 'Donate' button below & above ?
These are honest accounts from unhappy patients who underwent refractive eye surgery at an Optical Express clinic: Lasik, Lasek, IOL, RLE, etc...
If you would like to share your own story, please contact OERML.
NB: Verification is required before publishing as OERML works hard to ensure all site content is factual.
In 2002-2003, damaged LASIK victim Roger Bratt protested outside laser eye surgery clinics in Southern California
Published in 2003, his website is now dormant, but it still has a lot on there worth reading: http://s403998394.onlinehome.us/LASIKSOS
I intend to post more information like this, to highlight the fact that many of the problems caused by refractive eye surgery were recognised in the very early days of this expanding industry - and reported on at the time.
Because, as patient problems have increased exponentially, at a rate outstripping the growth of the industry, it begs the question, why then is this undeniable and massive (global) medical scandal being ignored and its victims silenced?
Instead of publishing details, and inviting people like me and Paul Dance's widow on to ITV's This Morning* etc..., the press and media promote unregulated refractive eye surgery, without caveat, whilst giving priceless free advertising to clinics and surgeons, usually in return for 'complimentary' surgery for their journalists and presenters - including the BBC!
Roger summed it up neatly: 'Simply put, we injured patients are bad for business. Very few people would ever submit to laser eye surgery if they knew the full breadth and extent of patients injured, disabled, crippled, and blinded by the refractive surgery profession.'
Ain't that the truth!
Hence why demos, talking to people, sharing posts, and making as much noise as possible, all so important!
And of course, after 2003, ICL and lens exchange surgery crept into the mix, creating even more problems...
*In 2019 I was surprisingly invited to guest on This Morning show, but ophthalmologist Dan Reinstein refused to appear with me (subsequently making himself a laughing stock with his ridiculous comment about wearing glasses being dangerous - Optical Express recently used similar nonsensical advertising) and I suspect Ruth Langsford may have breathed a sigh of relief that he did!
In a perfect illustration of nepotism, promoted from lowly optom to Clinical Director, Noelle Hannan (née Hamilton) is wife of Tweedledum (aka Stephen Hannan) - in fact David Moulsdale's business would fall apart without so many of the extended Hannan family who’ve sold their souls to Optical Express at his beck and call ?
7 December 2019 In a perfect illustration of nepotism, promoted from lowly optom to Clinical Director, Noelle Hannan (née Hamilton) is wife of Tweedledum (aka Stephen Hannan) - in fact David Moulsdale's business would fall apart without so many of the extended Hannan family who’ve sold their souls to Optical Express at his beck and call ?
'Noelle has experienced many roles as an optometrist, including surgical post-operative check-ups and carrying out consultations to determine patients’ suitability for laser eye surgery and lens surgery. She works closely with surgeons on treatment days, supervises optometrists and supports their professional development.’ http://www.positivehealth.com/author/noelle-hamilton https://www.opticalexpress.co.uk/magazine/article/lasik-vs-lasek-whats-the-difference
Tweedles has been on the front line batting away complaints from the many thousands of damaged OE patients for almost as long as I’ve been campaigning for government regulation of this corrupt industry, and I met him and his sidekick Tweedledee* many times at the Harley Street ‘Complex cases’ clinic when accompanying patients seeking help. But this ended up costing OE too much money as my presence ensured Jan Venter - in the hot seat for a number of years - would refer said damaged patients externally, so the senior directors jumped on the opportunity to ban me from all OE premises when they found a spurious excuse to do so.
Mrs Tweedles of course knows how many people have been damaged as a result of laser eye surgery at OE, and is blatantly lying in this video when she states that laser eye surgery is ‘very safe’!
Referring to Lasik, she says, ‘most patients have functional vision the next day’...
And following Lasek, ‘By day 4 the majority of patients are happy with the level of vision they have at that point and it will continue to improve.’ (happy if they’re not left blind!)
Considering that 51% is a majority, therefore 49% a minority, I would ask Noelle to quantify ‘most’ and 'majority’?
A number of years ago, before OE employees realised they needed to hide their Facebook pages from me (David Teenan a bit late to the party, providing legal firms with a jaw dropping post exhibiting absolute contempt for his damaged patients - see Cyclops photo posted 1 June 2018), an online conversation between the yet to be Mrs Tweedledum and her friend exchanged complaints about the annoying cold calls they were receiving from sales people.
The irony of this obviously wasted on Mrs Tweedles, because this was at the height of OE’s spam offensive, before they were stopped in 2015.
Of course OE’s clever team found a way to continue spamming, launching the sickening Thanks A Million campaign, donating £1 million worth of laser eye surgery to NHS and emergency service workers...
Laura Newman was touted on Instagram as one of the winners, in fact Stephen Hannan’s cousin (see post 29 May 2018). And I have photos of Laura at her cousin’s wedding to Mrs Tweedles before her Fb page was privatised!
OE's Thanks A million campaign appears to be endless, and begs the question, how long do they intend to stretch out this advertising scam purporting to be an act of selfless generosity?
Optical Express will take advantage of any high profile matter of public concern, including terrorism and environmental issues, the latest of course being their bullsh*t cover of contact lens disposal, even setting up centres in their stores to do so, nothing more than a ploy to get traffic through their doors and pressure the people to switch to laser or lens surgery!
As one optometrist said to me, does this mean Optical Express will cease sales of contact lenses?!
*David Mungall, who quit OE a few years ago, apparently because of stress, or maybe conscience!
11 November 2019
A record number of people have seen the forum post showing photos of Greg Brady and his family (BBC News/Press/Media, 19 Oct 2019) so when he found out that I had been invited to guest alongside him on This Morning, with at least a million viewers tuning in every day, I fully appreciate why Dan Reinstein told producers that he wouldn’t appear with me.
If laser eye surgery is so safe, with no serious problems to be concerned about, then why would Dan have an issue with me presenting my side of the story (representing many 1,000s people damaged by unregulated refractive eye surgery)? And didn't the producers think to question his reasons for refusing to appear with me (or with the damaged patient who replaced me), because surely his moaning that I'd badmouthed him on the internet should not be accepted as a reason to avoid facing valid criticism of the industry!
And as a campaigner calling for UK government regulation of the refractive surgery industry, and patient advocate representing an endless stream of damaged patients since early 2012, surely what I have to say is a matter of public interest, far more pertinent than yet another advertorial for Dan Reinstein - who is probably wishing he’d stayed in bed that day, as I’m told he's now a laughing stock amongst his peers after telling Eamonn Holmes and Ruth Langsford that glasses are dangerous, ‘you could break your neck, your life could be in danger!'
I should mention that I have tripped on numerous occasions thanks to my damaged vision (on one occasion falling and cracking ribs), yet this never happened in more than 40 years of my wearing glasses before laser eye surgery!
Let's look at this more closely, and then Dan’s reluctance might be easier to understand when you realise the connection between the photos I've posted...
When I polled a few refractive ophthalmologists re Dan’s claim that SMILE is ‘minimally invasive’ (suggesting it's less risky than other laser options) one surgeon responded, 'Nonsense. It's surgery in the middle of the cornea… patients shouldn’t be fooled into thinking it’s not proper surgery.’
Decide for yourself…
Misnomered SMILE was the same procedure that lead to Jessica Starr’s suicide in December 2018. Performed by Dr Shabbir Khambati at his Lake Lazer Eye Center clinic in Michigan, who has so far managed to keep his name out of the press and media, and when I questioned how, a US campaigner told me that damaged patients are often scared to name their surgeon for fear of being sued for defamation (I would love to see this attempted in the UK!)
And this was true in the case of Dean Kantis, whose surgeon Dr Nicholas Caro issued a claim against his damaged patient in 2004 - $2,000,000 for slander and libel! I spoke with Dean recently, who confirmed that not only did he successfully defend the claim, but that Caro’s solicitor was struck off.
It is almost one year since Jessica Starr committed suicide, and since that time, who knows how many more of his patients Dr Khambati has damaged - not just his laser patients!
I vehemently argue against refractive surgery being referred to as 'cosmetic', because it most definitely is not. However, Dr Khambati is a jack of all trades, as I discovered after being introduced to Ariane earlier this year. https://useemore.com/about-us/dr-khambati/
After badly botched blepharoplasty (eyelid) surgery on 31 May 2018, the dreadful results left Ariane Cardoso also wanting to end her life, and she told me that it was only realising how upset her children were by their mother's crying that she managed to survive.
Ariane complained to the Michigan Dept of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, who weren’t interested, until a number of other complaints were allegedly made following Jessica Starr’s suicide, and in July 2019 Ariane was invited to meet with one of their investigators.
She told me that she mentioned Jessica Starr and asked what they were doing about this. The investigator told her that it was ‘very sad’, he couldn’t talk about it, but that Khambati would not lose his license.
Just like the General Medical Council (GMC), (who’ve closed every single complaint made against refractive surgeons bar Bobby Qureshi), the department wrote to Ariane, 'a violation of the Public Health Code cannot be substantiated.’
In most cases damage after laser/lens surgery is not visible to an onlooker, but Ariane’s eyelids are obviously damaged, so wtf does it take to ’substantiate’ a complaint?! (Google Michigan Public Health Code: 'AN ACT to protect and promote the public health' - 688 pages of worthless legalese)
Though her photos remain, Yelp recently removed Ariane’s honest review from their site - and another left by one of Khambati's damaged laser patients.
Ariane told me that there are hundreds of doctors performing cosmetic surgery in Michigan, who are not board-certified, not specialised, and not even trained in plastic surgery!
From Brazil, Ariane added, 'If this happened in Brazil for sure his name would be in the news, tv, his license taken. A doctor in Brazil did plastic surgery [on] the belly of women, it was horrible, another died, his name went to the news, tv, everywhere. They took his license and closed his clinic and he paid money for the lady. Not the same here. They destroy lives and still protected.’
Mirrored in the UK - hence the Keogh report in 2013, which doesn’t appear to have made noticeable changes to the cosmetic industry that I’m aware of (happy to be contradicted with evidence).
So now I've joined the dots, perhaps this makes it crystal clear why Dan Reinstein was so reluctant to appear with me: he'd have squirmed had I mentioned SMILE and suicide, or asked about his damaged patient Anneka Rice - sporting noticeably red and sore looking eyes when she recently appeared as guest panellist on BBC’s 'Would I Lie to You?’ https://www.bbc.co.uk/…/would-i-lie-to-you-series-13-episod…
It also begs the question, after complaints to the programme, will This Morning invite Reinstein back for another advertorial, or will pigs fly and they'll invite me and Greg Brady?*
Meanwhile, on 1 November I wrote to The Royal College of Ophthalmologists questioning the advertising on their website for a training course run by Dan Reinstein, 'Given that Dan Reinstein was a member of the expert panel who wrote the FODO standards, in conflict with your own, can you please advise why the RCOphth is willing to promote this man’s business?’
It took two emails before I finally received a reply from Kathy Evans [RCOphth's highly paid CEO]…
'Dear Sasha The College has approved the educational content of the courses you have highlighted in your email of 1 November 2019 which are run by the London Vision Clinic.
Best wishes Kathy’
Never a straight answer from any of them!
Sadly - and scarily - after more than EIGHT years of wading through this nightmare, I have ZERO trust that any medical organisation will make patient care their priority! Words are cheap, but money is their motivation - at every level - and to hell with casualties left by the roadside: we’re simply a nuisance, interrupting the smooth milking of the cash cow.
It’s proven that the press and media cannot be trusted to tell the truth, pandering to corrupt surgeons, and ignoring highly newsworthy stories, Greg Brady a case in point.
If you took your car to a garage to be fixed, but they damaged it in some way, of course you would warn other people to avoid the garage, in the same way that you’d warn people about a dentist who didn't do a good job on your teeth.
In my opinion therefore, anyone who has suffered problems caused by the refractive industry has a moral obligation to speak out and name the person(s) responsible - especially media personalities and celebrities like Mel B, who needed a corneal graft as a result.
Mel B was personally responsible for thousands of people having laser eye surgery after publicly singing its praises more than fifteen years ago. Having casually mentioning her problem on The Jonathan Ross Show in 2014, she could have done so much to promote the truth of this scandal, with TV interviews guaranteed if I'd been able to get her on board, but she chose to ignore my pleas for support! https://closeronline.co.uk/…/mel-b-reveals-blind-left-eye-…/
Similarly, if Khambati's's name had been publicised at the time of Jessica Starr’s death, then any of his possible victims since would have understood the risks they were facing, and being ‘fully informed’ might very well have decided not not to go ahead with surgery!
For the record, I sent Khambati a number of messages offering him the right of reply to my intended post. He chose not to respond.
❤This post is dedicated to the memory of Diana Wozniak, another victim of this unregulated industry, whose determined research identified Dr Shabbir Khambati as Jessica Starr's surgeon, ironically only two weeks before she ended her own life in May 2019.❤
30 October 2019
Another sickening advertorial for Optical Express, this time in the Optician magazine!
Read OE's ‘Informed Consent' bullsh*t, and their absurd suggestion that ‘in the years ahead it may become socially unacceptable to wear contact lenses' - ROTFLMAO!
I spoke with the Optician's editor yesterday, pointing out that the majority of the magazine's optom subscribers (who sell specs and contact lenses) are unlikely to be impressed with OE's anti contact lenses marketing campaign, and suggested that he might like to redress the balance!
Given that Steven Schallhorn is Chief Medical Officer for Global Ophthalmic Devices with Zeiss, who of course sell contact lenses, you might therefore assume that putting his name to Optical Express' letter paid advertorial is a conflict of interests. I can assure you that it's not - Zeiss is also on a mission to persuade the world to have laser or lens exchange surgery, because this is where the big money is made! https://www.zeiss.com/meditec/int/specialties/laser-vision-correction.html
Spot the parallels - not forgetting that Johnson & Johnson is now one of the largest stakeholders in the refractive eye surgery industry worldwide!
'Johnson & Johnson painted itself as a victim of unwarranted smears by grasping opportunists trying to lay their hands on its money when all the company wanted to do was help people.’ (Lol!)
'The pharmaceutical industry remains influential over medical policy and practice, and continues to spend more than any other business on lobbying Congress.’ (US Congress = UK Parliament)
'false, misleading, and dangerous marketing campaigns…'
'Oklahoma’s attorney general, Mike Hunter, called the marketing strategy “a cynical, deceitful multimillion-dollar brainwashing campaign”'
'At the heart of the opioid crisis is the structure of American healthcare. It is less of a service than an industry with corporations – drug makers, insurance companies, hospital chains – wielding considerable influence over medical policy and the provision of treatment.'
'It was a business model the industry was free to pursue because its vast wealth kept sceptical parts of the medical profession, regulators and politicians at bay.'
'Medical policies shaped by industry marketing departments took precedence of the judgment of doctors.'
'When occasionally the regulators and prosecutors intruded, opioid makers bought their way out of a public accounting by paying millions of dollars to settle cases without admitting liability. That has been going on so long it’s regarded as the cost of doing business...'
'And it’s not restricted to opioids.’ (No sh*t Sherlock!)
9 July 2019
Promoting his own business, while yet again wrongly claiming the condition to be rare, Dr Arun C. Gulani has at least publicised the seriousness of pain caused by lasik:
NB: All laser vision correction surgery can cause great pain, especially Lasek/PRK, procedures rarely mentioned by the US media as they're less commonly performed.
29 April 2019
In case anyone doubts the fact that the government is deliberately ignoring this scandal by avoiding meeting with me, read on ?
Greg and Catherine met with Ranil Jayawardena MP a few months ago and asked him to arrange a meeting for them (and me) with health minister Matt Hancock.
They were quickly offered a meeting next month, with health minister Caroline Dinenage, and this was Catherine's reply...
Thank you for your email, but we note that there is no mention of Sasha Rodoy accompanying us to a meeting with Caroline Dinenage.
Sasha runs 'My Beautiful Eyes Foundation', and without her intervention as his patient advocate, Greg would not have had any of the treatment he has over the last eighteen months, both on the NHS (MEH) and privately (pro bono).
Since her own debilitating laser eye surgery in 2011, in addition to helping many thousands of people damaged by laser and lens replacement surgery, campaigning for government regulation of the refractive eye surgery industry, Sasha has worked closely with Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell since 2012.*
We are aware that since 2013 Sasha has had numerous scheduled meetings with health ministers postponed and/or cancelled, and we have seen relevant correspondence with Jeremy Hunt, Daniel Poulter, Ben Gummer, Steve Barclay, and others, and it is therefore Matt Hancock who is responsible for this area of health, not Caroline Dinenage.
There have been concerns about the refractive surgery industry raised in parliament since before 2004** yet the government continue to ignore the issue, while the NHS bears increasing high costs to provide aftercare and treatment for those damaged by the private sector. And benefit payments to those unable to work as a result. Greg falls into both these categories.
Thank you for your interest in this serious matter, but until the government agree to meet with Sasha Rodoy there is nothing to be gained by Greg and I meeting with Caroline Dinenage.
As your constituents we would therefore ask that you relay the content of this email, and our concerns about the lack of government action, to Matt Hancock.
I can see from the notes on your last meeting with Ranil that Sasha was mentioned and Ranil wasn’t sure if she would be able to attend.
Having investigated and considered this further, the conventions of the House of Commons mean it is only appropriate for him to arrange meetings with Ministers for constituents and their legal representatives. As Sasha is neither his constituent nor your legal representative, I’m afraid he is unable to invite her to the meeting. This would need to be arranged by Sasha’s own MP, who I understand is Mr McDonnell. I am sorry to hear of the difficulties that she has experienced in trying to secure a meeting herself, however this again is something that her own MP will need to (and I’m sure will) take up.
Having corresponded with the Department for Health and Social Care, they have advised that Caroline Dinenage is the best Minister for you to meet regarding your case. Ranil is happy to take up the meeting with the Minister on your behalf and convey the below message to both her and the Secretary of State if you do not wish to attend the meeting personally.
Please let me know if you would like to attend or if you would like Ranil to attend alone on your behalf.
I look forward to hearing from you.
I then emailed Theresa Villiers, adding Ranil's own email address to the Ccd recipients...
Re email below, dated 29 April, from Clemency Huggins (Office Mngr for Ranil Jayawardena) to Catherine Froud, whose partner Greg Brady was seriously damaged by laser eye surgery in December 2016, performed by a non medically qualified person: the matter currently under investigation by the GMC and CQC after the Met police spectacularly failed to progress what should have been a major criminal investigation in 2017. John McDonnell is aware of the details.
Now into my sixth year fighting for a meeting with a health minister, the fact that Greg and Catherine have been granted a meeting with Caroline Dinenage, without any apparent difficulty, shockingly proves how determined the government are to avoid addressing and acknowledging the scandal that is the unregulated refractive eye surgery industry.
And I am sure you will be happy to explain to your colleague Ranil Jayawardena that you are my MP, and have written to a number of health ministers over the years asking them to meet with me, while John even succeeded in scheduling meetings for me with Dan Poulter and Ben Gummer, which were in turn postponed, rescheduled, postponed, rescheduled, and finally cancelled when said ministers moved on!
Clemency wrote, 'I am sorry to hear of the difficulties that she has experienced in trying to secure a meeting herself, however this again is something that her own MP will need to (and I’m sure will) take up.'
For Ranil’s information I have attached copies of just two letters responding to your requests for meetings with me, from Philip Dunne in 2016, and Steve Brine in 2019. And there’re plenty more!
Lucky I’m not easily offended when ministers repeat the same party line, that they're unable to meet with me at this time - since 2013!
I am however extremely ANGRY that they know full well what’s going on, but kowtow to corrupt businessmen, allowing this unregulated industry to continue damaging untold thousands of people’s eyes and lives, at enormous cost to the country and NHS!
Clemency’s comment prompts me to ask that you add Matt Hancock to our list and ask him to meet with me - before the summer recess please, because otherwise I have no doubt it’ll be Groundhog Day when he’s replaced by someone else.
I look forward to hearing from you.'
27 April 2019 Again, all about cosmetic surgery - and I won't be surprised if this is in the Mail on Sunday tomorrow, supporters of any campaign bar mine.
'Prof Powis said: "We know that appearance is the one of the things that matters most to young people, and the bombardment of idealised images and availability of quick-fix procedures is helping fuel a mental-health and anxiety epidemic."
But the NHS could not be "left to pick up the pieces", he added.
For f*ck's sake - what about refractive eye surgery?
The NHS is picking up the pieces on a daily basis, at enormous cost to the country, yet the government continue to pretend there's no problem while NHS England treat many 1,000s patients damaged by private #refractiveeyesurgery providers, without a squeak from Prof Stephen Powis!
Meanwhile, the BBC and ITV regularly promote 'wanna be a celebrity' surgeons like Dan Reinstein (numerous damaged patients) and Bobby Qureshi (ongoing GMC tribunal), with advertorials for this corrupt industry regularly published in newspapers whose similarly corrupt owners have no respect for truth!
While the BBC and ITV regularly promote 'wanna be a celebrity' surgeons like Dan Reinstein (numerous damaged patients) and Bobby Qureshi (ongoing GMC tribunal), with advertorials for this corrupt industry regularly published in newspapers whose similarly corrupt owners have no respect for truth!
23rd May 2018 Update long overdue - please visit Facebook in the meantime! https://www.facebook.com/OERML
12 September 2015 Absolutely fantastic news when Jeremy Corbyn was today announced as the new Labour leader.
I have worked closely with John McDonnell MP, Jeremy’s campaign manager, since 2012, campaigning for the government to regulate the refractive eye surgery industry.
One of a number I contacted in late 2011, John was the only MP who agreed to support me.
John McDonnell is sponsor of our forthcoming Bad Eye Day Lobby on 14 October @ House of Commons.
Seb Corbyn is John McDonnell's Parliamentary Assistant, recently on secondment to his father's campaign team, while John was Jeremy's campaign manager.
Until I launched my campaign I was never interested in politics, while Jeremy's bid to be labour leader has had me on the edge of my seat!
Regardless of your politics, thanks to John McDonnell's association with Jeremy Corbyn, this is guaranteed to increase media interest and highlight the refractive eye surgery scandal.
Trust me, John knows exactly what's going on, and whatever position he is offered on the Shadow Cabinet, his seat on the frontbench can only be a good thing for my campaign, and a very bad thing for the high street providers - and all those who collude with them!
31 December 2014 Four years ago I enjoyed my life.
I had plenty of friends, I laughed a lot, was fun to be with… I travelled extensively, I had a successful business, and life was mostly good.
I had beautiful eyes!
Seven weeks later, I forgot why I’d always said I would never consider laser eye surgery, and all of the above changed!
Two months later my eyesight was f*cked!
Three months later I was suffering clinical depression…
Five months later I learned there were others like me - not just in the UK but worldwide.
Nine months later I’d lost my business and didn’t smile much any more...
Thirteen months later I’d discovered there were thousands like me, and I launched My Beautiful Eyes...
Four years later, I estimate there are in fact tens of thousands like me!
It’s been a long and arduous journey, and has completely taken over my life: a major battle, with countless obstacles thrown in my path - sadly not always by the industry
But I was never going to give in, no matter what!
And, although the fight is far from over, I believe 2015 will bring long overdue changes to this industry.
The government cannot pretend they don’t know what’s going on for much longer - no matter how much money is greasing palms!
17 December 2014 Further complaints from Optical Express resulted in access to OERML Facebook Page also being disabled outside the UK, and access to My Beautiful Eyes Page was removed too!
When a corrupt company can lie, and claim defamation by simply ticking a few boxes online, with nothing to support that claim, there is no such thing as the right to free speech on Facebook
Surely any claim of defamation should be backed up with legal action against the alleged defamer? Yet if you're thinking of beheading someone in the name of Islam then Facebook will let you chat about it for a while.
I guess that's so they don't show any religious bias.
To date, OE have made complaints about OERML to its web host, Nominet, Twitter, Facebook and Google.
All unsubstantiated, yet accepted without any due diligence by Twitter, Facebook and Google, the three big ones unwilling to give individuals the opportunity to defend their rights.
11 December 2014 So much has happened since August, not least the court award of £569.000 to Stephanie Holloway after she won her case against Optical Express and Dr Joanna McGraw in September:
On the down side, a spurious complaint from Optical Express in October resulted in OERML's Facebook page being hidden from UK viewers.
Facebook have accepted OE's complaint at face value [sic] without bothering to check the facts, and I am doing all I can to get them to pay atention and reverse the action. I have sent details of the Nominet DRS decisions and documents to Mark Zuckerberg in person, and am also hoping that forthcoming media reports will help.
23 August2014 This week's Which? report on laser eye surgery was great news and resulted in cover by BBC London News on 14 August:
At our very first meeting in 2011, MP John McDonnell advised me to contact Which? as they'd published previous reports after investigating the industry.
For two years I bombarded Which? with countless phone calls and emails, begging them to investigate!
I'd almost given up, until late last year when Which? Principal Health Researcher (Joanna Pearl) called to tell me they were going to look at the industry again, and I honestly don’t know how I kept the news quiet for as long as I did!
Now, thanks to Which? there is every reason for the press and media to report on this scandal and not succumb to threats of libel and advertising bribes from the high sreet chains.
I have good reason to believe the government has been influenced by industry lobbyists. I warn them now, MBE campaigners will not allow the government to avoid this scandal any longer.
And you can trust that both John McDonnell and I will be making sure they listen!
A date is now confirmed for me to meet with Health Minister Daniel Poulter, accompanied by John McDonnell MP and Harminder Dua, President of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists.
Realising that I am now making headway, against all odds and hurdles they put in my way, some worried businessmen have attempted to lobby John McDonnell, requesting meetings with him to discuss how they can, "support" the campaign and offer, "completely neutral and unbiased" suggestions!
I won't name names, but at least one of these men was invited to work with me more than a year ago to clean up their mess. Now they attempt to sideline me, hoping to persuade John to agree with their 'proposals', perhaps with lucrative offers of non-executive directorships etc...
Unfortunately for them, in the same way I told OE's Patrick James Green in March 2012 that I wouldn't give up my campaign "for a million pounds", neither will John McDonnell!
13 March 2014 A huge thank you to everyone who contributed to BBC Radio 5 live Investigates, especially producer Nicola Dowling who left no stone unturned in her pursuit of the truth!
The three days leading up to this were very stressful as OE lawyers desperately attempted to stop the programme being aired, whilst other parties tried to stop me speaking at all - like that was going to happen! There were a number of 'off piste' compromises made - one of which that I wasn't allowed to say that I've had unsuccessful eye surgery myself or mention Optical Express by name.
Not ideal, but as it's taken me nearly three years to get someone to finally publicise the truth about these dangerous clinics, had compromises not been made we'd still be in legal battles and the programme wouldn't have gone out.
I can only hope that this scandal will be followed up by some of those in the media/press who were previously threatened with libel, and given fat ad contracts to ignore me!
By the way, I'm told OE hired a PR company last week to deal with the expected backlash following today's revelations, as I imagine they'll be getting one or two surgery cancellations tomorrow.
When asked by 5 live presenter Adrian Goldberg whether or not Optical Express would welcome greater regulation of the industry, Steve Schallhorn replied: "Listen... we would support practical regulations that would improve the industry and deliver meaningful benefits to our patients, we would certainly support that."
If this is true then I invite Steve Schallhorn and David Moulsdale to meet with me and John McDonnell before our scheduled meeting with the Health Minister next month. I will send a letter to both parties and post their replies on this site and OERML Facebook.
When repeatedly pressed to answer the question that the ASA have ruled against Optical Express using the untrue advertised claim that 99% of people achieve 20/20 vision, desperately looking for a rabbit hole, Steve sighed and said: "I'm a.. I'm a... ophthalmic surgeon and I can't address advertising issues."
Really Steve? Then if you're not involved with OE's marketing and not licensed to practice surgery in the UK, exactly what are you doing for OE?
Steve mentioned "rigorous standards established by our medical advisory board..." but forgot to mention that he's the IMAB Chairman!
I’m off to drink a glass of champagne because I think I deserve it!
13 March 2014 On Sunday 16 March @ 11.00am, BBC Radio '5 Live Investigates' will broadcast the exposé I've chased for more than two years!
For more than three weeks, wonderful BBC producer Nicola Dowling has tirelessly explored every avenue I introduced her to, resulting in what I expect be an 'eye opener' for the entire country.
I'll be in the London studio with John McDonnell MP, and there're a number of guests speaking which of course include damaged OE patients!
The high street clinics were given the 'Right to reply' on Monday, and I was expecting 'No comment', so it was a big surprise when I heard yesterday that OE had accepted the invitation to come on the proramme.
But it'll be an even bigger surprise when you hear who OE have offered up to speak on their behalf. I'm not going to spoil the surprise, but can tell you it's not David Moulsdale.
17 January 2014 A belated Happy New Year!
As is obvious by the fact that OERML is still alive and kicking a**, Optical Express' complaint to Nominet was unsuccessful:
"The Expert finds that this is a resubmission of a Complaint already made, in substance, in DRS 11271, and that there are no exceptional grounds which would justify a rehearing. The Complaint is therefore rejected.
Signed Bob Elliott Dated 1st January 2014"
Determined not to stay down and out for the count, Optical Express have informed Nominet of their intention to appeal against this SECOND Nominet Expert decision!
They've paid £360 deposit and are required to submit a full appeal notice and the remaining £3,240 of the appeal fee by 29 January. They are not allowed to submit new evidence - which begs the question, why are they again spending hours taking screenshots of OERML pages (as a little OE birdie told me today)?
Whilst I have yet to see the details of OE's appeal, I suspect it won't warrant more than a brief reply from me in response to their submission as it's all been said!
12 December 2013 Under the DRS procedure Nominet have today appointed an Independent Expert to decide whether Optical Express' second complaint against OERML is justified. This is primarily based on their claim that OERML appears to be: "in effect a paid advertorial made by Optimax".
If this were accepted by the Expert then he could overturn last year's DRS decision from Nominet appointed expert Keith Gymer and OERML would be transferred to OE. (See OERML Domain Name Victory).
Mediation was short and swift as OERML is not for sale and therefore OE had to choose whether to give up or pay for an expert decision.
With 5-6,000 views every month OERML has become a valuable meeting place and voice for people in need of help and support. To lose it now would be an enormous blow leaving so many people with nowhere else to go.
All submissions have been made by both complainant and respondent and the Expert has until the 7th January to make his decision.
All we can do now is wait with bated breath in the belief that honesty and freedom of speech will continue to prevail.
1 December 2013 On the 3rd June, when he was emailing me at almost midnight, I expressed admiration for Rod McKenzie's devotion to his client's concerns, not realising then that Roderick Cheyne McKenzie has a vested interest: a Director with DCM (Optical Holdings) Ltd since March 2010.
Duh, silly me!
29 November 2013 Last week, Wednesday 20 November, it was surreal to sit in the Stranger's Gallery at the House of Commons and hear John McDonnell finally read the 10 Minute Rule Bill I've spent more than two years of my life fighting for. http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/house-of-commons-25019770
It was a roller coaster of emotions, from the moment I passed through security until the Speaker spoke those wonderful words: "the 'eyes' (sic) have it"!
Following their complaint to Nominet, Optical Express waited until I was en route to Parliament that morning before making a well timed complaint to Fasthosts, web host for OERML, threatening legal action if the site content were not removed, again claiming it is defamatory, libellous, etc... I received a text to notify me of this just as I'd picked up my 'phone from the security screening.
However, unlike 123-reg last year, Fasthosts refused to be bullied. After talking with me and understanding the issues involved, their legal dept contacted Harper Macleod and OE's dastardly plan to have OERML vanish at such a crucial time backfired!
Although still under discussion, I'm assured that if Fasthosts decide they are unable to host OERML they will give me sufficient time to transfer to an overseas hosting company to avoid further attacks from OE.
Meanwhile, there's a lot more Campaign work to be done and I have a meeting next week at the House of Commons to discuss this, followed by a meeting with Health Ministers in the new year.
I've always been confident we will win, but now I'm certain of it!
19 November 2013 Whilst Optical Express pursue their Nominet complaint that OERML is an "abusive registration" and all content and allegations relating to "patient engagement and treatment processes, and relevant medical procedures and standards" unsupported and defamatory, I look forward to positive repercussions of John McDonnell's Ten Minute Rule Bill tomorrow in Parliament.
Following the devastating results of my own lasek surgery on the 18 February 2011, I have obsessively campaigned and fought against all odds to expose the truths of this industry and it's almost surreal to realise that finally the walls are crumbling like Jericho thanks to the noise I've made, with many rats now eager to leave the s(t)inking ships!
31 October 2013 Some light relief as we look forward to John McDonnell's 10 Minute Rule Bill in Parliament on 20 November:
From: Sasha Sent: 22 October 2013 12:01 To: Jamie Watt Subject: Re: Dispute Resolution Service - DRS13417 - Notification of Complaint
Dear Mr Watts...
I note with interest that you have included the attached email, dated 6 November 2013, as part of 'evidence' submitted to Nominet to support your client's complaint against my domain name, "opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk".
With great interest in fact, as your client was not a recipient of this email, nor was anyone else associated with Optical Express/DCM et al.
It surely goes without saying that BUPA employees and the Ccd recipients would not have forwarded this to your client.
As your client's recent complaint claims "additional information" that OERML is a "paid advertorial made by Optimax", registration paid for by competitor Optimax, it would of course be silly of me to believe this email was forwarded to your client by Optimax's 'Operations Director' Pushpa Patel, who was a 'blind copied' recipient.
As I am fully aware that my computer has been 'hacked' for more than a year by someone in the industry, your client being the prime suspect, I therefore look forward to an early response explaining how your client came to be in possession of this email.
Sincerely, Sasha Rodoy
I recently launched My Beautiful Eyes, a free advisory service helping rapidly increasing numbers of people suffering post op problems following refractive eye surgery, 99% being Optical Express patients!
Perhaps there is someone at BUPA who would like to speak with me before I contact the press with in depth stories from some of MBE's clients currently in litigation against Optical Express, some of whom underwent RLE.
Please google my name for more about me & see www.opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk
Rgds, Sasha Rodoy
On 22 Oct 2013, at 14:59, Jamie Watt wrote:
Dear Ms Rodoy
Thank you for your correspondence.
The email to which you refer was forwarded to our client by BUPA.
Your allegations of 'hacking' on the part of our client are wholly without foundation, and we would ask you to refrain from making such unsupportable and defamatory statements.
Partner Harper Macleod LLP The Ca’d'oro 45 Gordon Street Glasgow G1 3PE Tel: +44 (0) 141 221 8888 Fax: +44 (0) 141 226 4198
From: Sasha Sent: 22 October 2013 16:45 To: Jamie Watt Subject: Without prejudice
Dear Mr Watts...
Definitely not "unsupportable" - possibly 'unprovable', only time will tell!
Meanwhile, I hope you're finding time to practise your golf for those lazy days ahead ;)
Sincerely, Sasha Rodoy
On 28 Oct 2013, at 17:02, Jamie Watt wrote:
Ms Rodoy Thank you for your email. My apologies. I do not understand your reference to golf. Yours sincerely Jamie Watt
I suggest you ask your client as I think his sense of humour is closer to mine - regardless of his wanting to kill me (allegedly).
16 October 2013 The battle rages on as Harper MacLeod, legal team for David Moulsdale/DCM (Optical Holdings) Ltd, yesterday submitted yet another complaint to Nominet in an attempt to have this website taken down.
Please see "News: Domain name Victory" for details.
13 October 2013 With the long awaited good news that on the 20 November John McDonnell MP will present a 10 Minute Rule Bill in Parliament, calling for the government to regulate this industry, it is now even more urgent that people contact their local MP to support him on the day.
For your convenience a suggested template letter is available on the 'Campaign' page with a link to find your MP's contact details.
As more and more people with problems contact My Beautiful Eyes free advisory service, many without hope of medical or legal recourse, I am determined this butchery has to stop with the refractive eye surgery industry called to account!
With untold thousands damaged by unregulated high street clinics, when John McDonnell publicises this scandal - in my opinion far more serious than the cosmetic surgery furore, the industry will no longer be able to suppress the truth with threats of libel, or with fat advertising contracts given to publications like the Mail on Sunday & Sunday Times, as they did last year to stop press cover of the Nominet OERML domain name victory.
Yes, there are many satisfied with the outcome of their surgery, but an estimated 20-30% are not.
That is why the very real risks of serious complications and adverse life changing results MUST be publicised, to stop tens of thousands more walking into the same nightmare that so many like me unwittingly did, having believed lie upon lie told in turn by high street clinics' call centre staff, 'sales counsellors', optometrists and surgeons, all under pressure to turnover as many treatments as possible, as fast as possible, simply to feed the greed of their employers!
1 October 2013 Instructed by David Moulsdale, Stephen Hannan finally emailed copies of my photos taken at the Harley Street and Glasgow demos.We didn't get any pics of the balloons at Braehead - too busy handing them out with flyers, so thanks to Hugh Kerr I can now post a few on OERML Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/OpticalExpressRuinedMyLife
30 September 2013 No response from David Moulsdale and Hugh Kerr following my request for copies of all my images photographed by them. In accordance with the ICO's guidelines I have written again advising that if I don't receive a response within 14 days I will submit a ‘request for assessment’ to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
22 September 2013 Glasgow demo update:
Following a successful protest outside OE's Harley Street clinic on 30 July, when patients' appointments were hurriedly cancelled and most of the staff sent home, I was asked if I would organise the same in Scotland.
With the Optical Express promo "20/20 Tour" scheduled to visit Glasgow's Intu Braehead shopping mall a few weeks later this offered the perfect opportunity!
17 August @ 11.30am synchronised posts advertising the protest were put up on the internet, just as I entered the video 'Pod' to record my thoughts on what laser eye surgery with OE would mean to me.
The promo stand was manned by agency staff paid by OE to hand out flyers and entice them into the Pod so I was unrecognised at that point, but disappointingly my video didn't make it to OE's Facebook page!
Midday, armed with balloons & flyers, protesters attacked the centre from all entrances and within minutes blue & white OERML balloons could be seen everywhere. It was a beautiful sight!
The Optical Express 20/20 Tour promo stand was situated in the premier location, centre of the mall's ground floor. The main entrance from the car park leads straight to the 1st floor balcony, which overlooked the stand where two staircases curved around the sides.
The Optical Express store is located near the top of the stairs and I was surprised to see a number of police officers standing a few feet away, until I realised there was a police recruitment on.
We completely sabotaged the promo! Not only did a number of protesters enter the Pod & record their own video, but for every single flyer the PR agency staff handed out, we followed with one of our own. We even joked together that perhaps we should save time and hand them out in pairs!
By midday an unknown man had appeared on the balcony taking numerous photos of me and other protesters. Surprising him from behind, I asked his name and why he was photographing me. He didn't answer but beckoned a police officer over for help before scuttling to hide inside the OE store.
When he surfaced again I turned the tables and tried to photograph him.
Desperate to avoid being caught on camera it was by far the most amusing part of my day when he literally ran away from me, accompanied by a tall scruffy younger man, and hid in a clothing store at the end of the balcony.
A text message from an OE insider advised me that Hugh Kerr had arrived, but not reading it until much later I was unaware this man was "Wee Shugster", as he's affectionately known to his colleagues.
I was also informed that Hugh Kerr had desperately been calling staff in for back up, even telling those with young children they should bring them too! What was he planning to do - have them steal our balloons?!
I was told fifteen appointments were cancelled that day and OE suffered substantial financial losses.
Throughout the day shopping mall security and police approached me a number of times, suggesting I took the protesters to stand outside the entrance to hand out flyers and balloons. I refused (it was raining!) and told them to arrest me if they had to.
Of course Optical Express did not want me arrested as it would have guaranteed press cover, which they've gone to great lengths to stop, with another in depth story, in Scotland's Sunday Herald, killed a few weeks ago thanks to pressure from Moulsdale's legal team, Harper Macleod.
There's a thought - what will Rod McKenzie do when his biggest client goes under? Golf?
The police assured me that Optical Express had made no direct complaint against me, although Hugh Kerr & Janice McPherson whined in the shopping mall manager's ear for most of the day! Mid afternoon he finally sent two security guards to invite me to a meeting in the Management Suite.
A reasonable man, he was concerned that OE might refuse to pay for their space if he didn't try to resolve the matter. I told him he should be more concerned as to whether they're able to pay the shop rent, explaining how David Moulsdale had bought his company's alleged £30 million RBS debt for a fraction of its value.
He then generously offered me a space in the shopping mall free of charge, which I had to refuse as it wasn't next to the Optical Express Pod!
He gave up and instead asked what I was hoping to achieve long term. I told him about My Beautiful Eyes Campaign, the numbers of people damaged by this industry, many taking legal action, etc... he took my card and said he'd look at this site later.
I returned to the floor, amused to watch Janice McPherson on the balcony continuing to peck in the poor man's ear for the next few hours. He was no doubt relieved to see the end of that day, but I'm sure he'll be monitoring any late rent payments ;)
Meanwhile, the young man manning the Pod told me he should have left Braehead at 4.00pm returning the Pod to London, when Optical Express management & staff would take over the floor space with their sales pitch. Unfortunately for him, as the management were unwilling to face me they'd told him he had to stay until closing time.
Am I really that scary?
With the help of so many people - mostly damaged patients and their families - the day couldn't have gone better! And a big 'thank you' to DS who inflated 100s of balloons for us!
The best news was of course the fact that Optical Express's "20/20 Tour" was cancelled as a result of our protest!
Meanwhile, Optical Express are legally required to provide me with copies of all my images photographed by them at both demos.
I have written to David Moulsdale and Hugh Kerr requesting such and with a statutory time limit of 40 days, as advised by the ICO, they must respond by 27 September.
A number of people told me how satisfying it was to speak out in public against the company responsible for damaging their lives and warn others of the risks. So if you'd like to arrange your own "Pop Up Protest", it only needs two people, OERML T shirts & flyers! I'll be pleased to come along when possible, but my presence is not essential.
NB: David Moulsdale sacked then Commercial Director Hugh Kerr in 2006 for lying about the company's KPIs (Key Performance Indicators). An insider told me he was escorted from OE's Cumbernauld HO by finance director Stewart Mein, who had to wait whilst the Wee Shugster was sick in the toilet.
I believe Kerr rejoined Moulsdale's 'Ring of Steel' in 2010, yet interestingly there is not a photo of him to be found anywhere on the internet!
24 August 2013 Dealing with so many enquiries from damaged patients every day leaves me little time for much else - especially my own life - which is why I haven't posted here recently. Will do so asap, when you can look forward to reading more about the Glasgow demo last week and the reclusive Hugh Kerr.
5 August 2013 Tonight I received shocking information concerning David Moulsdale which undoubtedly calls into question his honesty and morality.
Last year documented threats were made against me by Moulsdale's General Operations Director aka 'troubleshooter', Patrick (James) Green.
Reported by the Metropolitan Police these threats remain on file.
I despise this cash cow industry and its total lack of care for those feeding it and will continue to help as many people as possible left damaged by Optical Express or any other 'cut price' refractive eye surgery clinic!
This industry MUST be regulated by the government as a matter of urgency and regardless of bribes and questionable deals played out in the background the press will not be silenced indefinitely!
28 July 2013 "Twice every year, Mr. Teenan attends International Medical Advisory Board (IMAB) Conferences and is annually assessed by this board. The panel consists of several of the world's most eminent Refractive Surgeons including Mr. Steve Schallhorn, former Head of Ophthalmology for the US Navy and Professor Jan Venter, a world leading ophthalmic surgeon."
An impressive CV and reassuring to know Mr Teenan is assessed by the IMAB - unless you know the IMAB was set up by David Moulsdale, with both Steve Schallhorn and Jan Venter on his payroll and David Teenan currently under investigation by the GMC for AT LEAST five cases of alleged negligence.
Ten months later with no sign of recovery or strengthening, more OE patients in litigation and their 'top' surgeons like David Teenan under investigation by the GMC with multiple complaints of negligence, Scotland's Herald newspaper opined yesterday:
If true Moulsdale's debt was paid off with a mere £6 million!
In stark contrast a damaged patient emailed David Moulsdale requesting their OE medical records and received a response from Stephen Hannan demanding £50 payment.
The patient queried this and Stephen Hannan replied,
Thank you for your email which was addressed to our Chief Executive Officer. In my capacity as Clinical Services Director for the Optical Express group and based on our previous communications I am offering this response to your email.
It is the accepted practice of many organisations within the medical industry to apply a charge when a patient requests a copy of their clinical records. This charge is not for financial gain but rather to reflect the costs associated with the collation, duplication, packaging and posting of a patient's records. This requirement is in line with Data Protection Act Guidelines.
In line with our current policy for any record request under the Data Protection Act, the £50.00 fee will remain in place. We also quote a period of 21 days to supply a patient with a copy of their clinical records so if you require to receive a copy ahead of your forthcoming appointment with Professor Venter, we will make every effort to furnish you with the records following payment being received.
In order to complete this request please contact contact Mr Darren Boyle on 01236 795 096. Alternatively you can send a cheque to the following address made payable to Optical Express: Optical Express 200 St Vincent Street Glasgow G2 5SG
Stephen Hannan Clinical Services Director Optical Express
T. 01236 795104 M. 07740 592389
It would appear that having damaged people's eyes Optical Express are so hard up they are now reduced to billing those patients for their own records! Clever move given the increasing numbers of damaged patients, because at £50 a time OE are likely to recoup quite a chunk of their losses before putting more stores into administration!
And the Royal Bank of Scotland are party to this!
8 June 2013 On 2 June 2013 @ 19:07, Rod McKenzie wrote:
Dear Ms Rodoy,
You refer to the 'GMC Good Medical Practice guidelines' but I regret that we cannot identify the provision to which you refer. Please send us the link to the relevant document with the paragraph numbers(s) on which you rely. If the advice you rely on has been provided to you in writing please send me a copy.
I repeat, I have spoken with the GMC who assured me that the patient has a right to have whomever they wish to accompany them at an appointment and I suggest your client himself contact the GMC for confirmation of such.
The doctor providing consultation is obliged to follow the GMC's Good Medical Practice guidelines so perhaps Professor Venter is better placed to provide you with details of his obligations to his patients.
It should be noted that when my client asked Stephen Hannan and David Mungall for Professor Venter to be consulted in regard to my presence at his consultation at your client's clinic on 13 May they refused his request.
My client has since made an official complaint to the GMC as will all MBE clients should they similarly be refused their requests for my attendance at consults at your client's clinic(s).
Meanwhile, I am still awaiting your client's confirmation that provision of hard copies of agreements and data held by your client relating to me is being actioned.
At this point, having seemingly lost his patience, Rod gave up any pretence of politeness & addressed his missive to "Ms Rodoy..." without the customary use of "Dear..."
To be fair it was nearly midnight!
2 June 2013 @ 23:40, Rod Mckenzie wrote:
It is you who asserted that Professor Venter was obliged to act in a particular way in accordance with the guidelines quoted by you. It is perfectly reasonable for us to request that you clarify which provision or provisions of these guidelines you are referring to. It is pointless for us to guess which of them you might be relying on.
Please advise with whom at the GMC you have spoken regarding this matter so that enquiries by our clients are directed to the appropriate person.
It is assumed that the agreements to which you refer are the Declarations of Attendance documents signed by you. Copies of these are attached.
Rod McKenzie Partner Harper Macleod LLP The Ca’d'oro 45 Gordon Street Glasgow G1 3PE Tel: +44 (0) 141 221 8888 Fax: +44 (0) 141 226 4198
3 June 2013 @ @ 00:45, Sasha Rodoy wrote:
Dear Mr McKenzie,
It is not in my job description to advise you or your client so I recommend they do as I did and call the GMC who will direct your client to the appropriate person able to answer their questions.
Having explained my position the GMC were extremely helpful in researching the information I required.
Thank you for the attachments and as I have repeatedly requested I look forward to receiving hard copies of the same plus all data your client holds on me according to the Data Protection Act 1998.
After receiving your most recent communication so late on a Sunday evening I must express my admiration for your devotion to your client's concerns.
Sincerely, Sasha Rodoy
30 May 2013 On 30 May 2013 at 19.16, Sasha Rodoy wrote:
Dear Mr McKenzie,
Following your client denying my clients their rights to my accompanying them to their consults at Optical Express Harley St clinic the GMC have assured me they are entitled to my presence should they want it.
In accordance with the GMC Good Medical Practice guidelines the attending doctor is required to overrule his employer's decision in this respect as his duty of care is for his patients not his employer.
If the doctor refuses to allow his patients/my clients their right to my presence he will be answerable to the GMC.
Your client should therefore be aware that I will continue to attend with My Beautiful Eyes clients when asked and if refused admittance my clients will make their request for my attendance directly to the doctor concerned and any refusal reported to the GMC.
NB: As in most cases my clients are being examined by Prof Jan Venter I advise your client make the content herein known to him before my next visit to your client's premises.
Should there be any doubt on your client's part regarding the validity of the above I suggest your client contact the GMC for clarification.
Furthermore, following my asking for hard copies of agreements and data held by your client relating to me I would appreciate your client's confirmation this is being actioned as it is now fifteen days since I made this request with no response.
Sincerely, Sasha Rodoy
24 May 2013 In accordance with the GMC's Good Medical Practice Guidelines, Stephen Hannan's recent letter to a My Beautiful Eyes client confirmed, "You may of course bring anyone of your choosing to attend the appointment with you", yet Sasha Rodoy has been informed by OE's lawyer that she is not allowed to attend any of their clinics (see below).
This will be challenged and should he not overrule Optical Express' "corporate decision" and agree to Ms Rodoy 's attendance at the request of his patients, Professor Jan Venter will be facing the GMC.
23 May 2013 BBC East Midlands Today news report: Optical Express claim to support government legislation!
Within one hour of this segment being aired numerous Optical Express patients contacted OERML for help!
10 May 2013 In an effort to prevent My Beautiful Eyes clients receiving her representation and support @ 4.50pm Optical Express' lawyer emailed Sasha Rodoy:
(Coincidentally, BBC Radio 4 'You & Yours' was broadcast earlier that day featuring an interview with John McDonnell MP and BBC Look North TV news cover of My Beautiful Eyes Campaign broadcast the day before)
13 May 2013 @ 13:37, Sasha Rodoy wrote:
Subject: Without prejudice
Dear Mr Mckenzie,
Having this morning spoken to my solicitor I am advised that when attending your client's premises there is nothing in my behaviour to merit your client's 'ban' on said attendance. In fact this is a contravention of my own clients' rights to have a person(s) of their choosing accompany them to any medical consultation.
'My Beautiful Eyes' advisory service offers help and support to countless patients suffering damage to their eyes as a result of refractive eye surgery, the overwhelming majority being your client's patients and should your client deprive them of their right to my support my clients will seek legal action.
With reference to the second paragraph of your letter: this is entirely without merit as I have always been careful to avoid conversation with any patient in your client's Harley Street waiting room concerning your client's clinical treatment.
However, I cannot be held responsible for MBE clients engaging in conversation with other patients and during a recent visit with my client Mr J____ to your client's premises in Harley Street I found it necessary to remove myself from the group who had gathered around to avoid being included in discussion instigated by my client.
As your client's employee Stephen Hannan was aware, Mr J____ made it very clear he would bring negative attention to your client's business unless he received the result he sought, in this case reparative surgery performed by a third party surgeon paid by your client.
In respect to my assertion that my clients should be referred to a third party surgeon, I make no apologies and will continue to seek the best treatment for my clients as you would surely do for yours.
Meanwhile, I will continue to accompany my clients to their consults at Harley Street when asked and should your client attempt to restrict me from helping my clients by refusing me entry I will in future stand outside the building soliciting every patient entering and exiting your client's premises handing out cards and flyers.
In the event of this happening I will seek legal advice regarding your client's unlawful attempts to restrict my ability to help my clients and your client can rest assured I will have press in attendance and post full details on my opticalexpressruinedmylife website.
I trust I have now clearly explained my position in regard to this matter.
An appointment had already been arranged for Ms Rodoy to accompany yet another MBE client to his consultation with Prof Jan Venter on 13 May. Having been informed of OE's legal letter the client reaffirmed his wish to have Ms Rodoy present.
However, the client was refused his legal right to have her present and the consultation did not go ahead
Unbeknown to Messrs Mungall & Hannan the entire incident was recorded, proving claims stated in the following email to be inaccurate!
The client has asked for the recording to be held back until speaking with his lawyer.
Meanwhile, the GMC and CQC are looking into the matter of patients being refused their legal rights.
15 May 2013 @ 16:00, Rod Mckenzie wrote:
Dear Ms Rodoy
Thank you for your email of 13 May. Whilst you indicate that you have a solicitor, you have not advised me of the identity of the individual or firm concerned. Accordingly, I am unable to correspond with your solicitor direct. I would advise you to pass on a copy of this email to your solicitor.
We understand from our clients that notwithstanding our letter of 10 May 2013, you attended at our clients' Harley Street premises on 13 May.
We do not intend to, nor are our clients required to, engage in a debate with you concerning our clients' reasons for the direction contained in our 10 May letter. Our clients are entitled to require you not to enter their premises and that requirement has been clearly communicated to you.
Your claim that you do not interact or seek to interact with third parties in our clients' premises is hardly credible in light of your conduct, as advised to us, when you attended at our clients' Harley Street premises on 13 May.
We are advised, that on being asked to leave, you walked over to a lady who was present in our cilents' waiting area and stated: "Are you thinking of having eye surgery with this company? If you are do not. I represent patients who had optical express ruin their lives. I am being kicked out of the clinic because I am costing the company too much money".
You will appreciate that a careful record was kept of precisely what was stated by you to the third party concerned.
The requirement that you not enter our clients' premises is not unlawful. It is entirely within our clients' right to so determine.
Rod McKenzie Harper Macleod LLP The Ca’d'oro 45 Gordon Street Glasgow G1 3PE Tel: +44 (0) 141 221 8888 Fax: +44 (0) 141 226 4198
15 May 2013 @ 17:08, Sasha Rodoy wrote:
Dear Mr McKenzie,
I have no need to advise you of my solicitor's details at this juncture and therefore it is me you should write to not my solicitor.
As stated in my email dated 13 May, "I have always been careful to avoid conversation with any patient in your client's Harley Street waiting room concerning your client's clinical treatment". Again, as previously stated, until 13 May at NO TIME had I engaged in conversation with patients in your client's waiting room as I would not jeopardise my position by giving your client a reason to stop my entering.
I also wrote if I were restricted from accompanying my clients to their consults I would solicit every Optical Express patient entering and exiting the building and as my client was denied his right to my presence on Monday this is what I did and will do in the future.
To date I have managed to stop campaigners protesting outside your client's clinic because of my attendance, but now there is no value in doing so and I will instead be inviting them to join me.
Re "You will appreciate that a careful record was kept of precisely what was stated by you to the third party concerned."
Indeed, "a careful record was kept"! Your client's employees did not ask me to sign an agreement before our conversations and I therefore have recordings of said conversations with Stephen Hannan, David Mungall in the private room and waiting area as does my client.
These and copies of your correspondence will be posted on OERML, YouTube and elsewhere, as well as being provided to the press and media in forthcoming interviews.
Had your client not taken this unmerited action I would have continued to refrain from "engaging" with patients at OE Harley Street clinic entirely for the sake of my current clients.
Instead of which my clients will continue to receive my representation in alternative ways during their consults whilst allowing me the freedom to talk with other OE patients as previously detailed.
Please be aware I have discussed the legalities with Westminster Police and I am within my rights to do so as long as they are previously informed of times and numbers of protesters.
Should your client want to reconsider his position I am open to negotiation in this respect.
Furthermore, I would appreciate hard copies of all agreements I signed when visiting OE Harley Street clinic and all data your client holds on me according to Data Protection Act 1998.
I look forward to your immediate attention to this.
"We are advised, that on being asked to leave, you walked over to a lady who was present in our cilents' waiting area and stated: "Are you thinking of having eye surgery with this company? If you are do not. I represent patients who had optical express ruin their lives. I am being kicked out of the clinic because I am costing the company too much money".
You will appreciate that a careful record was kept of precisely what was stated by you to the third party concerned."
Your client's 'tag team' need to be be more honest and exact in their reports back to your client as this is not what was actually said as my recording clearly proves.
In the same way your client's claim that I have attempted to "speak to other patients at the clinic..." is without merit.
No wonder OE are responsible for damaging so many people's eyes if this is an example of "a careful record (being) kept precisely" ;)
Sincerely, Sasha Rodoy
22 June 2013 Having still not received the documents requested, I again wrote to Stephen Hannan and he replied:
19 Jun 2013, at 17:58, Stephen Hannan wrote:
Dear Ms Rodoy, Further to your Data Protection Act 1998 ("DPA") subject access request dated 15 May 2013, we confirm that we do not hold any personal data relating to you within the meaning of the DPA. You have already been provided by our solicitors, at your request, with copies of the agreements that you signed when accompanying patients at the Optical Express Harley Street. We and our solicitors, do not have a postal address to which to send you hard copies of these agreements but could do so if you provide us with an address to which to send them. Yours sincerely, Stephen Hannan MCOptom Clinical Services Director Optical Express T. +44 (0)1236 795104 M. +44(0)7740 592389 ______________________________
On 20 Jun 2013, at 12:16, Sasha Rodoy wrote: Dear Stephen...
Before I respond further, to be sure I've not misunderstood the content of your message below can you please confirm that neither you (Optical Express) nor your solicitors Harper Macleod have my postal address?
Sincerely, Sasha (Rodoy) _______________________________ No reply! _______________________________ On 21 Jun 2013, at 13:07, Sasha Rodoy wrote:
Dear Stephen... I understand you're a very busy man with so many problems to deal with, but your earliest response to my question would be appreciated. Thank you, Sasha (Rodoy) _______________________________
On 21 Jun 2013, at 13:22, Stephen Hannan wrote:
Dear Ms Rodoy,
Thank you for your email.
I can confirm that our company solicitors nor I (Optical Express) have your postal address.
Regards Stephen _______________________________
Of course Optical Express and Harper Macleod have my address having been involved in legal proceedings with me on two occasions: when they challenged my OERML domain name in 2012 and again five months ago.
Stephen was lying to me, just as he did to my face when he denied putting up a 'wanted poster' in OE's staff rooms last year, claiming I was using stolen credit cards to purchase expensive frames from OE stores.
Patrick James Green's lawyer also wrote to me in March, threatening legal action if I did not take down details of PJG's bribery offer. (More on that later) ______________________________
On 21 June 2013, at 14:23:58 , Sasha Rodoy wrote:
Please also confirm, does Patrick Kelly work for Optical Express and did Harper Macleod represent DCM Ltd (Optical Express parent company) in the Nominet dispute claiming my OERML domain name was an "Abusive Registration"?
Dear Ms Rodoy,
With reference to your exchange with Mr Hannan, I cannot locate any correspondence that we have sent to you at a postal address.
Historically we note that reference was made to an address with a London Post Code beginning XXX but that has not been confirmed to us as the postal address you wish to have used and the reference is now too old for us to reliably use it as your present postal address.
We would not want anything sent by post to be delivered to the wrong address.
To be clear, if you have a current postal address to which you wish the copy agreements to be sent then please confirm that address to myself or Mr Hannan and copies will be sent in early course.
I look forward to hearing from you
Rod McKenzie ___________________________
Nice try but Stephen walked right into this one. When will he learn not to tell big porkies?!
We both know that you and your client are fully aware of my current address - and my bank a/c details, phone number etc...
I look forward to receiving the hard copies I requested, which includes ALL data held by your client pertaining to myself.
I'll play your game on this occasion, as indeed we wouldn't want anything sent to the wrong address.
Yes, my address is the one you have on file, as I'm reliably informed do other parties related to your client ;)
Rgds, Sasha (Rodoy) __________________________ On 21 Jun 2013, at 15:34, Rod Mckenzie wrote:
Dear Ms Rodoy,
Your assertion that Mr Hannan should "not..tell big porkies" is plainly an allegation that he was lying; that allegation is unfounded.
Apart from the copy agreements, what you requested from my clients by way of a subject data access request was any Personal Data held by it, as that term is defined in the Act. Your request has been answered.
Further copies of the agreements will follow by post to " XXXXXXX". If this is not your postal address please advise by return.
___________________ Hard copies of agreements were received today, but no records of personal data!
Rod did ask me for confirmation of receipt, so here it is.
The moral of this story is, if you're going to lie make sure there's no hard evidence to incriminate you!
If you have been referred to the Optical Express Complex Cases Management Team @ Harley St clinic you are advised to contact My Beautiful Eyes for information regarding your rights: