Royal College of Ophthalmologists | RCOphth

  • Caro

Replied by Caro on topic Royal College of Ophthalmologists

Posted 15 Jul 2015 19:14 #101
The way Sasha has been treated is outrageous, and I hope that the Royal College of Ophthalmologists will see sense and find a way to include her in their working group. If they do not, they will not only find themselves in an embarrassing situation with people questioning their ethics, but will also be trying to address the problems of this industry with their heads firmly buried in the sand.

To answer your question Jimmy, I too have not received a reply from Kathy Evans, and I think it is time that these people realised that the longer this goes on, the bigger the scandal they will have on their hands.
Last Edit:16 Jul 2015 07:04 by Caro
  • admin
  • admin's Avatar Offline
  • Posts: 1161
  • Thank you received: 153

Replied by admin on topic Royal College of Ophthalmologists - Part 9

Posted 15 Jul 2015 16:38 #102
(Previous - Part 8, 3 Jul 2015 16:50)

Following my email to Kathy Evans (after being 'uninvited' to join the Refractive Surgery Standards Working Group), she sent me the, “evidence (that) points to the fact that you would not be a constructive member of the group”.

And just as I expected, the “unsolicited information” was supplied by Optical Express!

The first piece of ‘evidence’ (like I’m on trial), re "despise this industry”, and “in offensive language, that you will destroy it”, was an email I sent to Russell Ambrose in 2013. Always one for transparency where legally possible, I had copied this to David Moulsdale.

NB: Because of my ongoing legal proceedings v Russell Ambrose I’m not publishing the email in its entirety, although Moulsdale appears to have shared it with the RCOphth and his entire staff at Optical Express!

In my email, dated 4 July 2013, I wrote, "I despise this industry Russell and will do everything I can to stop thousands more being hurt and lied to.”, and, "As I told you the first time we met on Friday 13 May 2011, I will f**k you and I will f**k this industry.”

The second piece of ‘evidence’, re “police warning”, was simply laughable - a string of emails Stephen Hannan had exchanged with Glaswegian PC David Dinnen in November 2014.

You can read the absurd and amusing story here: "Threats & bribes... 30 Nov 2014 @ 22:34" www.opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk/ind...the-truth.html#10979

I sent Kathy copies of the emails I’d exchanged with PC Dinnen, and she invited me to meet with her, and Communications Manager Liz Price, on 3 July.

The meeting lasted an hour, and it must be said that I did most of the talking. I told Kathy that I made no apologies for using offensive language, which was after all addressed to Russell Ambrose (and did include asterisks!). I suggested that she too might feel like swearing if her eyes and life had been ruined.

I also explained that it was relatively early days for me in July 2013, and it was the 'high street ' industry I referred to at that time.

As for the 'police warning', I asked why the College had not asked OE for more details instead of taking the complaint at face value.

I was told it was the Council's decision to remove me from the Working Group and it was irreversible (just like the damage to my eyes).

I asked who had told Optical Express about my appointment to the WG, as I’d been asked to keep it quiet. They didn’t know. I said that it must have been leaked by someone within the College.

With nothing to lose, I told Kathy and Liz about the threats and bribery offers I’d received, and much more!

They appeared to be quite shocked.

I said that I had received many complaints about David Teenan’s appointment to the Working Group, and knew that some of these had been sent to the College, although I’m told none have yet received a reply. I questioning why he was therefore on the Working Group.

Kathy claimed that none of the surgeons had yet been confirmed. I argued this, pointing out that I had been sent a copy of the mail confirming his appointment, signed by Bernie Chang (RCOphth Vice President & Chair of Professional Standards), and that Teenan had also announced it himself, with all details on OERML.

Since the meeting, in response to one of my queries, on 10 July Kathy wrote, "The decisions about the composition of the Refractive Surgery Standards Working Group are the responsibility of Council. I note your comments about David Teenan and am taking further advice."

I said that the College was making a big mistake to take me off the Working Group, and would be discredited by their decision, that they had been played by Moulsdale.

Kathy denied Mousdale had any say in it, but I disagreed, he had provided the ‘evidence’, and if it hadn’t been that it would have been something else. I explained how it is no doubt his worst nightmare to have me on the Working Group - not only fighting to have the RCOphth guidelines enforced as legal requirement, but helping revise them too!

I said I was uniquely qualified for this position, and the Lay Advisory Group must agree as they nominated me!

I have since made numerous requests to the RCOphth, some under the Data Protection Act, asking for further details about the information sent to them by Optical Express.

I had stated that I did not wish to be involved with an organisaton controlled by corrupt businessmen, and that I would not be attending tomorrow’s meeting of the Lay Advisory Group.

However, I discussed the matter with a number of people, including RCOphth surgeons equally frustrated and disappointed with this decision. All advised that I should engage with the College and remain a member of the Lay Advisory Group.

I assure you that I did not make my decision lightly, nor does it alter my opinion that the College has been manipulated, and therefore ‘controlled', by corrupt businessmen, but for the time being I shall remain a member.

Meanwhile, in the midst of writing this, John McDonnell's PA contacted me to say he was arranging a meeting with RCOPhth President, Prof Carrie MacEwen, to discuss my removal from the Working Group.
Last Edit:16 Jul 2015 15:47 by admin
The following user(s) said Thank You: Nick
  • Shell84
  • Shell84's Avatar Offline
  • Posts: 14
  • Thank you received: 2

Replied by Shell84 on topic Royal College of Ophthalmologists

Posted 15 Jul 2015 13:39 #103
I am absolutely outraged that Sasha has been taken off the Refractive Surgery Standards Working Group. No one else on that group can now offer the insight and truth from the perspective of us, the damaged patients. Sasha would have offered a fair and balanced view and made sure the guidelines addressed issues prospective patients need to know. But now the Royal College of Ophthalmologists is shown to be just as corrupt as Optical Express and others in the refractive eye surgery industry.
It is all so unethical and they should be ashamed of themselves for withdrawing Sasha's invitation.

As outraged as I am, I'd have been naive if I was surprised by their decision though.
It seems to me the RCOphth is just part of David Moulsdale’s propaganda machine. I mean why else would David Teenan be on the group?

The whole thing is a joke and I urge everyone who supports Sasha, who is basically every damaged patient of this industry to write to Kathy Evans and express your disgust at their actions. They should be ashamed of themselves. They have taken our voice away and silenced us once again so that the Mousdale clan can proceed with this ugly, despicable and purely profit making business.
Last Edit:15 Jul 2015 13:56 by Shell84
  • Jimmy B
  • Jimmy B's Avatar Offline
  • Posts: 37
  • Thank you received: 21

Replied by Jimmy B on topic Royal College of Ophthalmologists

Posted 15 Jul 2015 10:24 #104
I posted below on the 6th July that we should write to Kathy Evans at the Royal College of Ophthalmologist to ask why Sasha Rodoy was excluded from the working group.
"Everyone who Sasha has helped, and there are a lot of you, should write to Kathy Evans and complain.

I have still had no reply, has anybody else?

This is important so that we have fair representation for all of us damaged patients.
Last Edit:15 Jul 2015 10:56 by Jimmy B
  • Birdie

Replied by Birdie on topic Royal College of Ophthalmologists

Posted 15 Jul 2015 09:54 #105

admin wrote: 6 May ’14: John McDonnell MP 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.

Professor Dua supported regulation so what’s McEwan's excuse?
Optical Express must have been overjoyed when Professor McEwan was voted in as President.
No prizes to guess why David Teenan is in the Workimg group and Sasha’s been given the boot!
Last Edit:15 Jul 2015 10:53 by Birdie
  • The Truth Fairy

Replied by The Truth Fairy on topic Royal College of Ophthalmologists

Posted 12 Jul 2015 19:49 #106
Well said Fed up!

In my opinion you can add The Royal College of Surgeons to your list, and some Health Ministers, the NHS, and plenty of other hospitals/clinics, medical/optical suppliers and some medico legal experts.
Have I left anyone out?

Greedy unethical investors? Although personally, even if I had no conscience, I wouldn't want my money invested in a sinking ship.
Last Edit:12 Jul 2015 22:28 by The Truth Fairy
  • Fedup

Replied by Fedup on topic Royal College of Ophthalmologists

Posted 12 Jul 2015 18:55 #107
Nothing regarding this industry surprises me anymore. The RCOphth and the GMC are both corrupt and not fit for purpose. Neither of these joke organisations are to be trusted. They are both bought off by the FAT CAT businesses that are ruining peoples eyes. Don't be fooled into believing that these corrupt people are looking out for your best interests, THEY ARE NOT!

How can the so called leading butchers with very strong ties to AMO be allowed to contribute financially? How can the GMC be impartial when it's funded by these butchers who pay to be members?

They are not impartial, not working in patients best interest, and not fit for purpose.

JOBS FOR THE BOYS, and both organisatons are supported by the foul people in Downing Street!
Last Edit:12 Jul 2015 19:07 by Fedup
  • Grim Reaper

Replied by Grim Reaper on topic Royal College of Ophthalmologists

Posted 07 Jul 2015 17:30 #108
They are all corrupt. Keep going....
Last Edit:07 Jul 2015 19:28 by Grim Reaper
  • Truth Fairy

Replied by Truth Fairy on topic Royal College of Ophthalmologists

Posted 06 Jul 2015 20:42 #109
With the likes of AMO sponsoring the RCOphth, there is a shocking conflict of interest that in my opinion should not have been permitted in the first place. No wonder they don't want Sasha involved. This industry is all about money and forget the victims and future victims. It's a case of mind over matter:

They don't care because we don't matter to them.

There will come a time when the people involved will be exposed, and they may regret not behaving in an ethical manner.
by Truth Fairy
  • Birdie

Replied by Birdie on topic Royal College of Ophthalmologists

Posted 06 Jul 2015 20:09 #110

Mr C.O.Rupt. wrote: The AMO (Abbott Medical Optics) name is listed on the Donations sign in the lobby of the RCOphth premises...
AMO supply Optical Express with refractive eye surgery hardware and products..

Don’t forget that Moorfields surgeon and Royal College member Julian Stevens is a highly paid consultant with AMO. So is Optical Express global MD Steve Schallhorn, and he also has shares in AMO!
No way will any of these surgeons let Sasha Rodoy anywhere near making guideline revisions when it affects their bank balances :sick:
by Birdie
Moderators: admin

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

Your help is very much appreciated!