General Chat - open to all! 21 Mar 2020 19:19 #11
(1 of 3)
Fao David Moulsdale and Russell Ambrose - owners of Optical Express, Optimax and Ultralase respectively - and any other psychopaths trying to steal as much money as possible in deposits from trusting people before the government force them to close, because they are so amoral they won't do so of their own volition
I recently spoke with a Moorfields consultant (not a refractive surgeon), who told me that he and his colleagues are at high risk of dying, given their close proximity when examining patients, more so because of the volume of patients they’re in contact with.
Vividly echoed by Dr Jack to LBC!
Moorfields Eye Hospital and Moorfields Private Eye Hospital published this info on Thursday evening...
'In response to the current coronavirus situation, we are deferring all non-urgent treatment from Monday 23 March. This is being done on the basis of clinical need; our doctors and nurses are reviewing each person’s requirements individually. We are doing this to minimise the number of people having to travel to a clinic, as well as ensuring we are using NHS staff and resources wisely.’
'Until further notice, we are unable to book new patient appointments.’
Less than two hours ago I personally called Optical Express, Optimax, and Ultralase, all who advised they are open for business next week, offering consults and surgery!
18 March at 15:33 ·
We understand that this is an uncertain time for many, but rest assured we are open for business as usual and are still carrying out treatments and appointments in our clinics.'*
Yet parent company Optimax posted,
'Your eyes are lined by mucous membranes, a thick protective fluid. Primarily, this membrane is to stop dirt and grit from entering your body through the eyes, as well as ensuring that your eyes stay well hydrated. However, with COVID-19, this mucous membrane becomes an easy point of access for the virus to enter your body. Further to this, the virus can also spread through your tears.'
*Source lost, so possibly deleted in the last hour since I found it.
The Association for Perioperative Practice (AfPP) 03 Mar 2020 18:56 #12
(4 of 4)
Either the AfPP did not exercise ANY due diligence, or they were only concerned with the money they're getting from Optical Express in return for accreditation
'Optical Express contacted AfPP after becoming interested in their new audit tool, to discuss the development of an additional ophthalmology section that would ensure they are meeting both the perioperative standards and the ophthalmology industry standards, initially within their Bristol and Glasgow sites.’
And as I know Miss Stott and her colleagues will have waited with bated breath for this post, I will explain exactly why OE wanted #AfPP accreditation, because it certainly wasn’t to improve their services!
'Quality and governance bodies
As the UK's number one provider of laser eye surgery, our commitment to patient care is backed up by our membership of a number of industry governing bodies.'
It is common knowledge that Optical Express DO NOT follow ophthalmology industry standards, namely the Professional Standards for Refractive Surgery published by the The Royal College of Ophthalmologists.
CEO David Moulsdale has utter contempt for the College (one of the few opinions we share), having refused to follow their guidelines (unenforceable), and funding fellow cowboys at Optical Confederation to publish the ‘Multidisciplinary Standards’: written by OE’s own clinicians (and Tweedledum).
• The Optical Confederation: 'Our clinicians and clinics follow the OC Multidisciplinary Standards for Refractive Surgery.’ Not recognised by any organisation but themselves. Fact, and I have it in writing from the GMC, GOC, and RCOphth.
• The Royal College of Ophthalmologists: 'Many of our surgeons are members of the RCO’ - but not all!
Moulsdale stuck his finger up at the College by insulting them with the acronym for the Royal College of Organists.
• International Medical Advisory Board: IMAB, owned by Optical Express, its members paid annually for their names (previously discussed).
• General Medical Council (GMC): No person can LEGALLY operate without being a GMC registrant, so if they were’ all registered I would worry! But I do question the wording ‘approved by’!
• General Optical Council: Similarly, all practising optometrists must be registered with the GOC, and whilst OE is indeed a business registrant, I definitely dispute their claim that they 'adhere to their strict standards of treatment and care.’ They do not.
• The Eye Laser Association: False advertising, and one for the ASA, because ELA no longer exists. I’m told it was short lived, with only a handful of members, including Boots and Optimax.
NB: The RCOphth, IMAB, and OC are NOT ‘governing bodies’!
And to spell it out, the reason OE paid the AfPP for accreditation of two clinics, with 6 more to come, is to publish the logo on their page, and frame it on their operating clinic walls, where trusting customers will be impressed by what appears to be accreditation of value.
I would draw Miss Stott's attention back to my email of 27 February, when I wrote, 'shame on you and your spurious association' - for playing along with this farce and colluding with a company that continues to regularly and irreparably damage people’s eyes and ruin so many lives!
And I had to laugh at the irony in this video, where two minutes in Dawn Stott says the AfPP want 'to encourage a zero harm approach to patient care.'
General Chat - open to all! 03 Mar 2020 15:52 #13
(3 of 4)
'CEO of the [AfPP] Dawn Stott said: “This is outside of our usual area of practice...'
And exactly why they should have stayed inside
Because assuming they had no idea of OE's history - and at the risk of receiving another threatening letter from Hempson lawyer Richard Nolan - had the AfPP employed due diligence before greedily grabbing the money OE waved at them, then no-one here would ever have heard of the association, and their reputation would not now be under fire.
Lie down with dogs...
'The Association for Perioperative Practice (AfPP) has broken into new territory after being appointed by a leading ophthalmology company to deliver a specialist audit accreditation programme across eight of their surgical suites.
The news comes just weeks after the release of the new AfPP Audit Tool, 2019 Edition – a robust tool that assists both private sector and NHS theatre practitioners in creating a safer perioperative environment.
Optical Express contacted AfPP after becoming interested in their new audit tool, to discuss the development of an additional ophthalmology section that would ensure they are meeting both the perioperative standards and the ophthalmology industry standards,* initially within their Bristol and Glasgow sites.
Optical Express is a leading refractive surgery specialist and the number one provider of laser eye surgery in Europe.
Through a complete review of these services, AfPP will use the audit to identify and implement effective risk management strategies that ensure patient safety during each of these surgical procedures.
Lindsay Keeley, patient safety and quality lead at AfPP said: “The clinical audit at both Optical Express’ Bristol and Glasgow clinics will include specialised guidance in addition to the AfPP audit tool 2019.
“This will support good practice and identify if any areas need change in order for accreditation to be granted.
“Clinical audit is an intrinsic cycle to improve patient care and outcomes. It works by measuring existing best practice against what is really occurring, and then reassessing and implementing change to improve patient safety and standards.”
As the UK’s leading membership organisation for operating theatre practitioners who put patient safety at the heart of all they do, AfPP are educated in current policies and processes that allow them to invest in the safety of all patients across many sectors.
Breaking into the ophthalmology industry highlights that the gap in the patient safety market is one that AfPP can fill.
CEO of the Association Dawn Stott said: “This is outside of our usual area of practice, however, we believe that all surgical settings that are regulated by the Care Quality Commission , are places that should meet AfPP’s standards and recommendations for safe perioperative practice.”
As a recognised market leader for refractive surgery and the UK’s only complete eye care provider, Optical Express has a duty to ensure that patients have positive surgical experiences and that their clinics remain centres of excellence.
Thanks to the AfPP audit and accreditation programme, patients will benefit from the security of knowing the surgical suites have been tested and certified by a third party, and that the team is behaving ethically,** employing suitable quality assurances at all times.'
* To be discussed in Pt 4
The Association for Perioperative Practice (AfPP) 03 Mar 2020 00:23 #14
(2 of 4)
By sheer coincidence, within ten minutes of my call to Richard Nolan, Ms A forwarded a copy of the email she had just sent to Dawn Stott at the AfPP
I am contacting you in regards to your recent accreditation of two Optical Express sites. I understand that you endorse safer surgery and good evidence based safe practice. However, I think that your accreditation methods are flawed if you have given this status to Optical Express, as if you had looked into their practice you would find a lot of unhappy and injured patients who were deceived by this company just to part them of their money. I am one of those patients.
My name is [redacted] and I am 47 years old (45 at the time of surgery* ). For the past 20 years I worked as an operational Paramedic for the Scottish Ambulance Service and I decided to get eye surgery to help me perform my job better as I needed glasses to read which made tasks such as intubation and CPR difficult.
I was informed by Optical Express my prescription and my eyes made laser surgery not viable therefore I was offered lens replacement surgery at a much higher price than the aforementioned laser surgery. I initally refused as I don't have that kind of money, so Optical Express sent me emails offering a reduced price but within a timed limit.
This practice should not be used in medical practice and this is stated within the GMC code of conduct which I was not privy to at this time. I was assured by staff that the risk of any side effects or complications was <1% which again I have since found out is a lie. Reassured by staff with these false stats, my father gave me an early inheritance to undergo this surgery.
Within 24 hours of my surgery my eyes were very sensitive to the light and I had severe starbursts, haloes and glares which left me unable to drive at night.
Optical Express again lied to me detailing that my eyes would adapt but eventually after months passed, I realised this company had been lying to me and my eyes have never recovered.
I have since lost my job as a paramedic with the ambulance service as I cannot safely drive under blue light conditions at night and I have had a subsequent 3 surgeries to try and resolve my vision issues but with no success unfortunately.
Therefore in conclusion, I would ask you to review your accreditation techniques and remove Optical Express accreditation by looking into their performance record and see that they have poor practices and little patient care with multiple pending legal suits currently against them which I would hope would eliminate them from your accreditation.'
* Way too young for lens exchange surgery!
Paramedic Deborah Dugdale was hopefully luckier than Ms A after winning free laser eye surgery with OE's Thanks A Million Campaign, which was in fact a marketing scam to generate business - with a photo on Instagram of Tweedledum's first cousin Laura Newman fraudulently passed off as one of the winners! (posted 29 May 2018)
And I find it somewhat odd that there are so many faceless people on the Thanks A Million winners page, especially given that one of the conditions of entering was that people had to agree to allow their names and photos to be used for marketing purposes.
I trust that Dawn Stott will now ‘reflect’ on her own conduct and actions, with yet more to come about the AfPP and Optical Express...
The Association for Perioperative Practice (AfPP) 02 Mar 2020 19:05 #15
(1 of 4 )
I would not have bothered mentioning the AfPP again, but they've brought it on themselves, not least because I don’t respond kindly to bullying and threats, but there is also more to this story
On 27 February, within hours of posting 'Update' - scroll back’ - late in the afternoon I received an email from Richard Nolan, partner at Hempsons law firm, 'STRICTLY FOR THE ATTENTION OF MS RODOY ONLY.’
Attached was a threatening letter, marked 'BY EMAIL ONLY STRICTLY PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL' - which anyone wanting a copy can ask me for, because I am not a lawyer, not regulated by the SRA, and will share whatever I want with whomever I choose!
NB: I haven’t removed any ‘offending content’ mentioned in point 1, and must assume the AfPP have done so, but they’ll need to go further than that to protect their reputation, by withdrawing accreditation of Optical Express.
• '2. This is not a letter of claim sent in accordance with the Pre-action Protocol for Media and Communications Claims (Pre-action Protocol).'
I laughed at this, because I’m used to lawyers thinking they can scare me off with legalese usually covering 8 to 9 pages, whilst this was poorly written and disappointingly only 3 and a bit pages.
• '4. Our client takes exception to what it considers to be the unacceptably aggressive, confrontational and condescending nature, tone and content of your telephone conversation with its Chief Executive which took place on 14 February 2020. We are instructed that you did not conduct yourself professionally and instead sought to make matters personal and about the individual rather than the organisation.'
This was an outright lie, because I had no reason whatsoever to ‘make matters personal’, and conducted myself entirely professionally. I was very calm, simply asked Miss Stott to do further research, to ask the GMC and GOC about complaints made about Optical Express staff, that I could introduce her to a number of law firms representing OE damaged clients - and if she doubted what I told her, to ask herself why no-one has sued me if anything I say/publish is untrue. (Not least Optical Express!)
• '5. Given your apparent ignorance of what accreditation of operating theatres involves, to publish in an email that you have copied to others that the Chief Executive of the AfPP was 'less than honest' is legally actionable. It is a statement in which you can demonstrably have held no honest belief and your ignorance of such matters cannot excuse such statement. AfPP is paid by prospective members for conducting robust accreditation processes, not for advertising. The legal position of AfPP and its Chief Executive personally is entirely reserved, and should you persist in making and publishing such content you may rest assured that legal action will ensue.'
• '12. In the circumstances we do not propose to address in detail the objectionable and offending social media content which you have published which continue along much the same vein and which are based largely on ignorance, whether knowing or wilful, and misconceptions. We note with interest your rather bold assertion to the effect that one contemplating seeking redress against you in defamation would do well to question why "no-one has sued me for libel."*
You would do well to reflect on why you seem intent on testing the limits on what you consider you can get away with and whether you may have crossed the line in statements that you have made and published about our client, an organisation which has been established since 1964 and which sets the standards for safe practice within the perioperative environment, and its Chief Executive.'
* Deliberate misinterpretation of my words to Dawn Stott.
Richard repeatedly referred to my 'ignorance' throughout his letter, twice suggesting that I 'would do well to reflect’ on my conduct and actions, as if addressing a child.
Not bothering to waste my time replying via email, I phoned Richard, who no doubt expected me to be humble and aplogetic, consumed with fear at the thought that someone was threatening me with legal action, so probably quite taken aback when I told him that (1) his client had not been honest (she seemingly oblivious to the fact that I often record phone conversations), (2) that he should tell his client I had no intention of agreeing to her listed requirements in point 14, (3) she should therefore go ahead with legal proceedings and I looked forward to hearing from him when she did.
He replied that he would tell his client.
To be cont'd...
Johnson & Johnson Vision Care 29 Feb 2020 16:49 #16
A brief background to explain why I describe this corrupt global industry as ‘incestuous’
Many of you will be unaware of the links that bond the biggest stakeholders, and why it is laughable to consider for a nanosecond that the FDA would do anything but provide Johnson & Johnson Vision Care with 'approval for a new laser eye surgery indication for its iDesign Refractive Studio system.'
‘MAUDE’, Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience, is the the FDA platform for reporting issues with devices, and it would be fair to question why the FDA continue to ignore numerous complaints from patients damaged by the medical devices they continue to approve.*
Steve Schallhorn was Global Medical Director at Optical Express for a number of years - some of you will remember when he had the pleasure of meeting me in a lift at the Royal College of Surgeons in 2015, accompanied by Moulsdale and Tweedledum (story posted 10 March 2015).
In October 2016 Schallhorn moved to ZEISS Group as Chief Medical Director, yet surprisingly remains as IMAB Chairman at Optical Express.
Having said that, IMAB members are paid a chunk of money to put their names to this spurious board, so perhaps not surprising, with free jaunts to boot - one year it was the Cayman Islands, where a little birdie told me David Moulsdale (allegedly) holds two bank accounts, with a Cayman Islander on his payroll.
'Professor Schallhorn has served as a clinical investigator on numerous Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clinical trials over the past 25-years.'
Daughter Erin Powers (née Schallhorn) has worked for both Alcon and Abbott Medical Optics - aka AMO, her daddy a shareholder and consultant, the latter acquired by Johnson & Johnson. She is now Senior Director for Medical Affairs and Professional Education for Carl Zeiss Meditec’s Ophthalmic Devices business unit.
Daughter Julie Schallhorn said, ‘"For example, dry eye before surgery does not necessarily mean dry eye after surgery", Julie M. Schallhorn, MD, MS, told colleagues at Refractive Subspecialty Day at the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery annual meeting.
Disclosure: Schallhorn reports she is a consultant for Zeiss, Johnson & Johnson and Avedro.'
And I note that Julie Schallhorn has now joined Optical Express!
You can bet none of David Teenan’s hundreds of damaged patents were included in this study, where Steven and Julie Schallhorn, with OE surgeons Jan Venter and David Teenan, claim, ‘[Laser Vision Correction] in pseudophakic patients with multifocal IOL was safe, effective, and predictable in a large cohort of patients.'
Who am I to argue with trustworthy doctors who prioritise the health and wellbeing of their patients, with financial gain not at the top of their agenda?
'J&J cited the cataract offering as a particularly important driver of the deal, describing the issue as the number one cause of preventable blindness, and estimating that around 20 million people are blind from age-related cataracts and that at least 100 million eyes are affected… And the number of cases will only grow with the ageing population, something J&J will likely be banking on for sales growth.’
In fact, Johnson & Johnson are banking on their playmates to promote lens exchange surgery, and I believe funded OE’s recent campaign to discourage the use of contact lenses and guilt trip people into laser or lens surgery!
And the lobbying power that J&J have, with so much money to grease the hands of the right people, explains why the government continue to refuse to meet with me, and why the press and media are persuaded not to mention Sasha Rodoy or My Beautiful Eyes Foundation: patient advocate representing thousands of people damaged by refractive eye surgery, and campaigner for UK government regulation of this dangerous and corrupt industry.
I have a huge spider’s web of information at my fingertips, proving corruption at every level of this industry, but for exposure, it needs a journalist not scared to look at this scandal, or a government not taking bribes in one form or another to turn a blind eye - though of course some of them are caught in the web!
But, as I have said before, I have VERY good reason(s) to believe that 2020 will be OUR year, so watch this space!
* MHRA is the UK equivalent of the FDA, equally corrupt in my opinion, case in point when they appointed Bernie Chang to investigate the M Plus X lens complaints, even though he was working for Optegra Eye Hospital at the time, who, like Optical Express, were also selling the lens (both companies with countless numbers of people fitted with MPlus X lenses currently in litigation).
Bernie Chang was Royal College of Ophthalmologists Vice President and Chair of Professional Standards when, at the behest of David Moulsdale, I was removed as Lay Adviser to the College's Refractive Surgery Standards Working Group.
And did I ever mention that I have an audio recording of Bernie, cornered at a (worthless!) RSSWG public consultation, nervously admitting that David Moulsdale had asked to meet him re getting me removed?
And just to show their gratitude for his brown nosing, Bernie will be crowned RCOPhth President next month.
It is no doubt of great regret to another brown noser, Christopher Liu (friend of David Teenan), that regardless of financial donations to the RCOphth, he was overlooked again.
I've highlighted just a few links in the chain, but there’re plenty more to be found, should anyone with enough time and interest care to look!
The Association for Perioperative Practice (AfPP) 27 Feb 2020 15:37 #17
12 February, posted on Facebook:
'No due diligence employed by The Association for Perioperative Practice methinks!
I spoke with an AfPP representative earlier today, directing their attention to OERML, and the recent Scottish Mail on Sunday article posted here on 2 February - let's hope they value their reputation.'
Screenshots say it all methinks, whilst I have had no response from businesswoman Dawn Stott
General Chat 24 Jan 2020 14:52 #18
When complaining to Optical Express you’re always fobbed off by the detestable Clinical Director Stephen Hannan. Our eyes have been ruined thanks to him and his colleagues who do not care, so these tweets from the equally detestable Mrs Hannan disgust me!
Her expensve new car was bought with money made from our damaged eyes, and I dont know how she has the front to complain about "customer care"!
What a hypocrite Noelle Hannan is!
General Chat 24 Jan 2020 14:34 #19
A little late with this post, but I've had an exceptionally busy week catching up with a backlog of damaged patients needing my advice
Last year a little birdie told me about Eyecare2020, 'the biggest conference and free exhibition for the optical industry in Scotland.’
Eyecare2020, held at the Glasgow Hilton, was aimed at optometrists and dispensing opticians, but I was told that Optical Express would be exhibiting, to promote LipiFlow sales, and to take advantage of the opportunity to recruit staff, and meet with opticians, offering referral fees to steer their patients to OE for refractive eye surgery (allegedly £500 per patient).
Anxious to keep a possible OERML intervention quiet, in early December I advertised on the MBEF closed Fb group for volunteers willing to attend a low key demo in Glasgow…
Last Sunday, wearing OERML T-shirts hidden under jackets, and armed with flyers printed for the occasion, we planned for the protesters to gatecrash a lecture on MGD, hosted by Tweedledum (aka Stephen Hannan) and his colleague Jill Orr, in association with Johnson & Johnson - how many of you remember when the J&J name was comfortably synonymous with baby care products?*
Protesters** milled around incognito for an hour and a half, until Billy sat down at the OE desk for a free eye check. (He successfully sued David Teenan and Optical Express and agreed an out of court settlement in 2019.)
Examining him for the cause of his dry eyes, the scans clearly showed damage under his eyelids, and the OE optom told him that this was due to wearing contact lenses.
Billy replied that this was impossible as he’d never worn CLs in his life, but could it be due to laser eye surgery?
‘Oh yes!’ she said, that would be why - horrified when he told her that it was OE who had operated, not because she doesn’t know about the high numbers of irreparably damaged patients, but because Billy was being loud enough for visitors to easily overhear!
He asked her why this isn’t covered by OE’s aftercare, and she curtly replied, ‘Because it’s NOT!'
Tweedles wasn’t at the MGD lecture, but was serendipitously found at the OE stand, at which point some of the protesters shed their coats and approached him… I'm told his expression was priceless when he saw them, his face turning chalk white!
Mrs A told Tweedles, 'I don't know how you manage to sleep at night knowing all the damage you do to patients!’.
He blatantly lied, replying that OE don't have any damaged patients!
‘Really?’, she said, 'I think you'll find that there're thousands of patients with irreversible eye damage’, adding, 'Would you let David Teenan near your son or daughter?’
Tweedles refused to answer, standing there stony faced.
The tall woman in black, presumably an Eyecare2020 representative, who placed herself in front of the cowardly Tweedles, asked the protesters to please leave, because, 'this is our seminar, not Optical Express’’.
Well perhaps they’ll think twice before letting OE in again!
Protesters who'd been spotted were finally escorted out by the hotel’s security officers, who told them they were right to publicise this scandal, while optoms and others also congratulated them as they went!
Meanwhile, a few undetected campaigners managed to spread more flyers around the show - even leaving a few OERML business cards on Tweedles’ desk!
This attachment is hidden for guests.
Please log in or register to see it.
All in all a successful wee demo, and a total embarrassment for Optical Express
*J&J now own the LipiFlow System, hence why OE charge far less than any other provider, but unsurprisingly have no idea how to use the product satisfactorily!
And of course they’re selling the treatment to patients left with MGD and blepharitis as a result of refractive surgery at OE!
**All protesters were damaged by David Teenan, all of whom have taken legal action against him.
The fact that OE advertise LipiFlow and iLasik on the same poster says it all - with so many thousands of people left with MGD and blepharitis post surgery!
General Chat 24 Dec 2019 14:33 #20
To anyone reading here who is planning to give laser or lens exchange as a gift to a loved one tomorrow, please do some more research - beyond the glossy and misleading ads
Because over the years I have spoken with too many well intentioned partners and parents who paid for refractive eye surgery as a xmas or 21st birthday gift, subsequently racked with guilt when the recipient was left with irreparable damage as a result.
For those who heed my warning, if you’ve paid in advance for surgery, be it a deposit or the full amount, but the person hasn’t yet had a consultation, no matter what you’re told, you CAN get your money refunded.
And whatever you’re doing tomorrow, I hope you have a good time, unlike one of my clients who contacted me earlier telling me he was very concerned about problems that had recently developed in his left eye, but said he’d wait until January to get it checked at Moorfields Eye Hospital - where he’d had an explant following problems after lens exchange surgery at Optical Express.
I advised him not to wait but to go to A&E at Moorfields immediately...
Three hours later he called to tell me that he’d been diagnosed with a retinal detachment and is booked in for surgery at 7.30am tomorrow!