Confirm text replacement with template category text
All the text in the message will be deleted and replaced by text from category template.
Topic History of : Refractive Lens Exchange (RLE aka NLR)
Max. showing the last 6 posts - (Last post first)
|23 Jun 2020 16:41 #346|
In my opinion Oculentis should leave the refractive industry stage, because their lenses are responsible for leaving thousands of people with heartbreaking problems, many with lifelong and irreparable damage to their eyes
I could write pages about this matter, but as today is the closing date for 130 people to tell their lawyers that they agree to accept the €1.75m offer from Oculentis I am rushing this.
(I may possibly post more details here at a later date, including my email conversations with the Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) - in my opinion as corrupt as their US counterpart, Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Unless 95% agree, Oculentis will withdraw their insulting offer, but the two unscrupulous law firms representing these clients have given them no choice!
Because anyone who dares risk refusing to accept what equates to a paltry €5-6k (less than the original cost of surgery) has been threatened by theIr lawyers that they will drop them and seek costs!
Since posting details on my sites a few days ago I have been contacted by a number of people asking for advice, including one person who underwent bilateral lens replacement surgery in 2014, but presented with problems only a few months ago, now advised that the lenses are on the Oculentis recall list and both need explanting.
This contradicts some reports claiming that deterioration of visual acuity will typically manifest within 36 months, and this should be of concern to anyone fitted with the Oculentis lenses.
Who will pay for future surgery if not the NHS?
In 2019 I was told about the Oculentis 'Patient Pathway’ (OPP), administered by Topcon GB Ltd (UK distributor for Oculentis) and advised that Topcon had recently imposed a payment limit of £3,500 per eye to surgeons performing explants of faulty Oculentis lenses.
Yesterday I contacted Oculentis CEO Ben Wanders, asking for details of how #MBEF clients can access this if not currently in litigation. He has failed to respond.
Today I emailed #Topcon MD, Andrew Yorke, asking how this will work for many of the 130 people who do, or may in the future, need explants - because once that €1.75m agreement is signed, unless included in its terms, they have no guarantee that this will be paid for.
And I also asked, given that Optegra Eye Hospital chain may be sold, or out of business by the end of 2020,* could he explain how this eventuality would affect their patients who have been assured that Optegra will provide explants that might be needed in the future.
What I don't understand is, given that Oculentis themselves recalled these lenses, why they now argue the claims brought by other (more scrupulous) firms representing clients fitted with these lenses.
This screenshot refers to OE's £21.5m legal claim v Associated Newspapers Ltd (re Daily Mail).
You will note that there is no mention of the damage caused to so many people who were fitted with Oculentis lenses, including retinal detachments and other serious issues - of more concern to me than the damage caused to the industry by publicising facts and truth!
And nor were the reports 'inaccurate and misleading', which is why Optical Express 'dropped' their claim, accepting a £150k Part 36 offer, and ordered by the court to pay the Defendant’s costs - which I recall were over £1m!
|18 Jun 2020 19:12 #345|
It's estimated that approximately 800 people were fitted with faulty Oculentis Intraocular lenses, recalled by the manufacturer in 2014 and 2017
Posted previously, but for those who missed it, the faulty lenses:
'LENTIS HydroSmart foldable Intraocular lenses (IOL), with CE mark CE 1275 packaged in glass vials, production date until 31/12/2011. All IOL models, starting with L-. LU- or LS- and with serial numbers starting with 20000.’
Expiry date: January 2017 to May 2020.*
The majority of patients were fitted with the recalled lenses at Optical Express and Optegra Eye Hospital, and also at Moorfields Private Eye Hospital.
When this was publicised, a number of law firms jumped on the opportunity to sign up as many claimants as they could, some with aggressive advertising and promises of huge settlements.
Today, while most of the claimants are still in litigation, some have paid a lot of money to have the lenses explanted privately, some at NHS hosptals, others still needing surgery.
After an anonymous source provided me with a number of ‘Strictly confidential’ documents, detailing a recent offer from Oculentis, to 130 victims included in what would be termed a ‘class action’ in America, I decided to do some further research.
In 2019 one law firm settled claims with Optegra clinics using contract law, alleging that the lenses were not of a satisfactory quality under the Sale of Goods and Services Act 1982.
I understand that Optegra settled these cases without too much fuss, albeit without an admission of liability, and clients apparently received approximately £13-14,000 each.
Different law firms have taken varying approaches to claims, going after the credit card company, using the Consumer Protection Act, and employing other strategies.
Two test cases are going to trial next year.
Brought to my attention yesterday, I discovered there were similar problems in 2000 and 2004, with calcification of Hydroview (Bausch and Lomb) and Aqua-Sense IOLs. (Google if interested)
I don't have any details about Aqua-Sense, but was told that Bausch and Lomb behaved in a reasonable manner: they held their hands up and accepted responsibility.
Unlike Oculentis, who are pleading poverty, determined to pay out as little as possible so they can stay in business and get back to making lots of money!
In a 'class action’ the settlement amount is divided equally between all claimants - after greedy lawyers have taken the lion’s share - which means that anyone who has serious problems and needs further operations will get the same amount as another person whose eyes are relatively OK.
And it should be noted that many of the claimants involved in this ‘class action’ were initially MBEF clients, and none that I know of were told they were part of a group action when they signed up with the law firms!
In fact, I have a recording of one lawyer assuring me that Oculentis claimants would be managed individually, NOT as a 'class action'.
And then we go back to the cost to the NHS…
Is it fair that a Dutch company should be allowed to continue trading for vast profit, leaving UK tax payers to fund operations to fix the problems caused by these lenses?
Answers on a postcard (email) - to your MP please!
To be continued...
|10 Feb 2020 17:23 #344|
Hi i am having trouble with Optical Express now I had multi focal lens replacement in April 2019 all seemed well at first then in may I had a vitreous syneresis in my left eye it looked like a detached retina, that has not got any better and every time i move my left eye i get this large opaque film move across , also I to cant drive at night as the halos are so large and bright ( they told me they would go in a few weeks) they are worse if anything also now i have a ghosting on vertical things in my vision so im not happy at all I keep phoning them but cant get to speak to anyone medical I have emailed the clinical team but no reply i'm at my wits end.
|09 Feb 2020 10:06 #343|
These are quotes regarding cataract ops (procedurally same as RLE/NLR) from US ophthalmologist Tim Root's Ophthobook : 1 - "Who decides?
Ultimately, it’s your patient’s decision whether to have surgery. In an ideal world without operative complications everyone should have cataract surgery as soon as the vision drops to 20/25. Unfortunately, bad things can happen in surgery, and patients have to decide if they’re vision is affecting their life enough to take the risk of surgery. Our job is to educate and inform our patients about these risks and about their surgical options." It is absolutely scandalous that patients are aggressively sold RLE/NLR ops when removing and replacing the eye's own lens is risky enough for medically essential cataract ops, let alone purely refractive ones! : 2 - "Conclusion: Cataract surgery is not easy
Almost every ophthalmologist performs cataract surgery, so there is a tendency to view this as a simple procedure that only takes a few minutes. Some cataract cowboys are able to perform an extraction in ten minutes and may even downplay the risk." I wouldn't be surprised if there are cowboy surgeons who perform the WHOLE RLE/NLR procedure in less than 10 minutes! timroot.com/cataract/
|08 Feb 2020 07:16 #342|
I am new to this forum and can see that there is a lot to read. I had intraocular sense fitted by Optical Express in 2013. All has been fine until now when suddenly my right eye seems blurry when watching TV and I am getting headaches above that eye.
I went to a normal opticians and had an eyesight and she said both my eyes had changed prescription, she also mentioned that I have cells growing behind my lens due to it not being cleared of cells when I had my surgery. I contacted Optical Express about my eyesight and they told me I would have to pay £75 for an appointment, Is this correct and has anyone else had this happen?
|18 Jan 2020 22:05 #341|
Hi vma1977 I suffered retina detachment recently too all because of the lying and incompetent staff at Optical Express. They ignored all warnings about my eyes to get me to pay my money for surgeries. Anyone reading this please save your eyes don't go near them and get lured by their lying sales pitches by medical staff and optoms.
I am still struggling with the state of my eyesight because nothing can be done to stabilise it or reduce negative effects of their “state of the art” sh*t lens they put in .
They claim they are world leading eye experts but honestly don't have a clue when things go wrong, they don't care about checking for anything .They fool you into thinking the lenses will fix everything . and never tell you about any risks - nothing to do with training, they ignore it all deliberately then wave a consent form at you when things go wrong. Unscrupulous ruthless money grabbing bastards the lot of them who would sell their own mothers.
Scary so many poor victims suffering Retinal Detachments and other serious problems caused by these fraudsters.