BBC News | Press | Media

I met with RCOphth Chief Executive Kathy Evans in July, when she confirmed that the Council’s decision to remove me from my position as Lay Advisor to the Working Group was entirely due to, "unsolicited information provided by David Moulsdale".

My subsequent SARs gleaned disturbing evidence of collusion between some members of the College hierarchy and David Moulsdale.

Journalist Simon Lennon started researching info for yesterday’s story in August, so I trust David now understands the text message I sent to him at twenty five minutes past midnight on 25 July:
"For every action there is a reaction… Tick tock ”

I just seen this in the newspaper, I am glad to see it all slowly coming out...

Hopefully save someones SIGHT!

Well done Sasha

Optical [strike]Express[/strike] Distress

13 January: The Herald


www.pressreader.com/uk/the-herald/201601...73764690517/TextView

The unidentified Glasgow patient is Jacqui: www.opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk/ind...-ruined-my-life.html

If you read my previous posts (5-9 December) you will know that the Royal College meeting with Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell was in fact convened at my request, to argue the College's decision to remove me from my position as Lay Representative on the Refractive Standards Working Group.
www.rcophth.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/201...urgery-standards.pdf

This decision was entirely due to David Moulsdale's successful lobbying of pivotal College Council members and his Machiavellian ploy to discredit me.

Regardless of the solid evidence that John and I presented in support of our argument for my reinstatement to the panel - and Teenan's removal, David Moulsdale indisputably calls the shots.

Proven when Vice President Peter Tiffin told the Shadow Chancellor, “And the feeling was that because of those unsolicited emails (from David Moulsdale) it was felt that Sasha’s presence on the committee would jeopardise its progress. But that’s the only reason, we want to get standards out, but we can’t do it without Optical Express being involved. Because if they’re not on board they won’t accept the standards.”

Nothing like a hard copy

I haven't had time to post the full story here as I was up late last night waiting for the press to publish online at midnight, and then copying articles onto my Facebook pages until 2.00 am!

I will update later, but for now, you can read more here: www.facebook.com/OERML/

"Glasgow-based Optical Express highlights impact of weak consumer confidence and restructuring"

"The latest accounts filed for the DCM (Optical Holdings) business last month show losses increased to £15.4m before tax in the year to 27 December 2014, from £6.3m in the preceding year. Mr Moulsdale, a former Entrepreneur of the Year, blamed the reverse on weak consumer confidence and ongoing restructuring of the business."


www.heraldscotland.com/business/14196991..._firm_takes_control/


www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industri...h/article4662948.ece



www.scotsman.com/business/companies/reta...al-express-1-3998241

Now how did that happen I wonder...

admin wrote: "Additionally, we feel that our statement that the procedure is normally safe is backed up by NHS statistics that demonstrate that complications occur in less than 5% of cases in the UK."
Mark Harrison Watchdog | BBC One

Statistics can be very misleading unless the underlying parameters are made very clear. The BBC quoting 5% is meaningless unless the source of the study on which it is based is quoted. Similarly the nature of the complications, their severity and also the duration need to be specified.

Of course 100 (replaceable) cars bursting into flames are far more important than tens of thousands of people's (irreplaceable) eyes being damaged.

My email exchange with Watchdog team this afternoon following my complaint concerning their 'weakdog' cover of Ultralase on 8 October:

From: Sasha Rodoy
Sent: 23 October 2015 14:20
To: Elen Moore
Subject: Re: As discussed, re Ultralase/Optimax
Importance: High

Hi Elen…

I had expected to have heard from Mark by now.

As well as the Watchdog advertorial for Utralase/Optimax on 8 October, I would also like to discuss the significantly high number of emails sent to Watchdog from damaged eye surgery patients spanning 3 yrs, many of which were copied to me.

I hope Mark will find time to call me as this is a major scandal ignored by too many who know about it yet in a position to help expose it.

Thanks,
Sasha
________________
On 23 Oct 2015, at 15:14, Elen Moore wrote:

Hi Sasha

Mark will be getting back to you today.

Best wishes

Elen
________________
On 23 Oct 2015, at 18:08, Mark Harrison wrote:

Dear Ms. Rodoy,

Thank you for contacting the programme. We note your concerns with our Ultralase piece and I would like to address your comments.

With regards to the risks associated with laser eye surgery, as part of our broadcast we did outline that some people do require follow-up care after their initial treatment. Additionally, we feel that our statement that the procedure is normally safe is backed up by NHS statistics that demonstrate that complications occur in less than 5% of cases in the UK. Regarding the Terms & Conditions- as part of our research we looked into these requirements but were unable to discuss these in detail during our broadcast due to time constraints. Those that have undergone the procedure have the full information on what terms they are expected to have met in their initial documentation.

Thank you for providing us with information on your own case earlier this year. On this occasion we did not have sufficient evidence to focus on damage to eyes during this procedure and chose to focus on the Ultralase Lifetime Guarantee based upon the weight of complaints on this subject to the programme. However, should we look to cover laser eye surgery again in the future we would certainly look to contact you again.

Mark Harrison
Watchdog | BBC One
______________
On 23 Oct 2015, at 19:08, Sasha Rodoy wrote:

Oh Mark, please!

It wasn’t only me who provided you with info, Watchdog has been bombarded with emails from 100s of patients damaged by eye surgery for the last 3-4 years - I have copies of many of these forwarded to me.

Also, I’m in court on 11/12 November v Russell Ambrose t/a Optimax for breach of agreement. Why didn’t your researchers pick that up?

Re "Additionally, we feel that our statement that the procedure is normally safe is backed up by NHS statistics that demonstrate that complications occur in less than 5% of cases in the UK.”

Which stats, where? I’m shocked that an investigative programme team did not check facts before simply repeating something that’s presumably been picked off NHS Choices or similar.

Refractive eye surgery is not available on the NHS (only cataract surgery), it is privately controlled and unregulated, and estimated complications after surgery at high street clinics are 30-40%, so how can the NHS provide stats for the high street clinics?!

This is a major scandal that I’ve been fighting for 4 years, and John McDonnell will support everything I tell you (copied in)!

Take a look at the recent post on my Facebook page: www.facebook.com/OERML I assure you, Ronnie is sadly far from a unique case!

Nor does your email make sense as I spoke with Helen a number of times and provided her with a lot of info:

"On 14 Apr 2015, at 15:03, Helen Collins wrote:

Hi, my name is Helen Collins and I work at BBC Television. Please could you give me a call the number below. I am currently doing some research into Optical Express and would like to talk to you about it.
Many thanks
Helen Collins
Producer, BBC Watchdog
Tel: 020___
Email: Helen__"

With respect, you are so uninformed and I really would appreciate a call to discuss in person.

Best wishes,
Sasha
07__
Sasha Rodoy
My Beautiful Eyes
Patient Advocate & Campaign Manager
_________________
Watchdog's 'investigation' was irresponsible and poorly researched, so PLEASE - everyone - email Senior Producer Mark Harrison to ensure that he definitely has "sufficient evidence to focus on damage to eyes’!!
Mark.Harrison1@bbc.co.uk

Bad Eye Day kicks off tomorrow @ approx 7.45am when I'm being interviewed on BBC Radio London Breakfast Show.

Listen on iPlayer @1.53...
www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/p033h9y3?t=13179.78 :kiss:

URGENT!

I called Watchdog earlier and explained how disappointed and angry so many people are with last night's investigation.

I pointed out a number of important issues not mentioned, including those noted in my previous post, adding that it was irresponsible for presenter Chris Hollins to claim that laser eye surgery is "usually very safe", while ignoring the estimated tens of thousands of patients left with problems!

I have been assured that they will consider all email complaints received and the series producer will discuss this with me next week.

It's therefore vital that Ultralase/Optimax patients email their stories - but everyone else too please!

If you are an OE patient who has been affected by the administration scam, mention this!

To refresh your memory: www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06h7jlg/w...-series-36-episode-1

If there is enough weight I am sure we can get further cover on this, if only an apology from Watchdog next week!

So PLEASE PLEASE, send your complaints to Watchdog asap watchdog@bbc.co.uk

Subject: 'ULTRALASE/OPTIMAX'

Watch on iPlayer @38.26 mins:
www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06h7jlg/w...-series-36-episode-1

Watchdog undercover researchers were all told by Ultralase call centre staff that the Lifetime guarantee was no longer valid.

Yet in their right of reply, Ultralase told Watchdog that they continue to honour guarantees to past patients, and will do so in future, provided they have stuck to their T&Cs.

Ultralase told Watchdog that they accepted that the call centre gave the BBC researchers the wrong advice about the Lifetime aftercare guarantee and in light of the BBC investigation they will review call centre staff training and monitoring!

Of course you will Russell

Major flaw in Watchdog's summary, they didn't ask what the T&Cs were that patients needed to have stuck to!

I will be calling Watchdog team tomorrow to point this out, and to mention the number of Ultralase/Optimax damaged patients who have been refused aftercare - me included, and I have a legal agreement!

I advise any Ultralase/Optimax patient who has been refused aftercare, or asked to pay for it - even if only eye drops, to contact Watchdog with details asap: watchdog@bbc.co.uk

As someone emailed earlier, it was a Weakdog investigation, with very poor research!