Catherine King MP 2

Further to this post.

A 25 Aug 2025 update: 360 every week being killed and 1,000 every week being permanently injured by medical error are pretty big numbers, wouldn’t you agree? You’d think that the politicians would be able to respond pretty quickly with what’s being done about it.

Ha ha ha! Ha ha ha! Ha ha ha! Not very likely, with the likes of Catherine King anyway.

Posted in Politicians or those who would aspire to be politicians | Leave a comment

Modern diagnosis 3

We read once that in the year 1900 50% of the American population was involved in producing food, and now it’s 3% – huge tractors, huge ploughs, huge seeding and harvesting machinery in the place of things like farmers walking behind horses with single furrow ploughs. (Apparently Henry Ford in response to criticisms of his production lines for being boring for his workers for 9 hours a day said, “Not as boring as walking behind a horse pulling a single furrow plough for 16 hours a day.”)

We believe that we are on the verge of a similar revolution in health workers diagnosing health and wellness problems, treating them and providing information – that at present, in these things, we’re at the “walking behind a horse pulling a single furrow plough for 16 hours a day” stage.

Things like Crowdmed and “Watson,” referred to in previous posts, are just the beginning.

Posted in Modern diagnosis | Leave a comment

Modern diagnosis 2

Further to this post, the same article has this paragraph in it:-

54Screen Shot 2016-08-22 at 9.55.47 am copy

See this Wikipedia article on “Watson” and see this paragraph in it:-

99Screen Shot 2016-08-23 at 3.35.54 pm copy

It would be interesting to know how “Watson” has progressed in the three and a half years since February 2013.

We have not the slightest doubt that in the near future, if not already, if a patient gets a diagnosis from a doctor about which they have any concerns, if they get one which is different from a Crowdmed or a “Watson”, that the onus will be on the doctor to establish that they haven’t been negligent.

Perhaps there are already Sydney doctors working with Crowdmed and “Watson.” Are there?

Posted in Modern diagnosis | Leave a comment

Modern diagnosis 1

See this articleCrowdMed, (misspelt in the article,) could be of incredible interest to some.

39Screen Shot 2016-08-22 at 8.58.02 am copy

It has a website, and a Wikipedia article on it.

(See this comment in this Wikipedia article – “Medical regulatory experts are also skeptical of the site, as they believe it is an “unauthorised practice of medicine.”” Large sections of the medical profession, of course, just want the system we’ve had for hundreds of years to continue, in which patients traipse from doctor to doctor, with very little guidance as to who’s good at what, paying $500-1,000 an hour to people who are often incapable of providing proper diagnosis, and will fight against organisations like Crowdmed “tooth and nail.”

We have not the slightest doubt about two things. Firstly, that despite this opposition, more and more organisations like Crowdmed will keep emerging all round the world. Secondly, that there will be more and more people with expertise in working with these organisations to assist patients to know exactly what’s wrong with them much more quickly, more accurately and more cheaply than happens at present – whether they will be doctors or others remains to be seen. Perhaps readers know of such people already?

Of course, in the meantime, stories of tragic misdiagnoses abound.

(Of course, dud doctors always start off with a wrong diagnosis, perhaps unintentionally through their ignorance, but perhaps even intentionally, so that they can use it as a basis for the wrong treatment which gives them more money than the right treatment. The story of Dr Andrew Brooks, Urologist, is a classical example of this latter.)

We’d love to hear from readers who have any feedback on these matters.

Posted in Modern diagnosis | Leave a comment

The Medical Profession in NSW/Australia – dealing with 26

This is a link to an article with this heading:-

77Screen Shot 2016-08-19 at 4.12.48 pm copy

and there are lots of similar articles around. One of them claims the epidemic has already resulted in 45 deaths in NSW.

We have long believed that, when something like this occurs, the governments, the medical profession or someone should, as soon as possible, have put up on the internet:-

  • a compilation of Frequently Asked Questions in relation to, in this case, the flu.
  • a list of the very best medical people to go and see about it.
  • an ordinary email address providing access to an expert or experts who could provide answers to questions not covered by the FAQs or for those who just didn’t have the time to go through all the FAQs to provide an answer to one of their questions or would prefer to get an answer from an expert tailored to the exact needs.

And one of the things that has long fascinated us – what if providing these things could be turned into a viable business? What if people would pay, say, $12, or whatever, for an answer tailored exactly to one of their questions, and whatever it was, was enough for people to find it worthwhile doing it. Of course if ever it got to this point the world would suddenly be a very different place.

Unlikely as this may seem, it would seem more likely than that governments or the medical profession would do it.

Posted in The medical profession in NSW/Aus - dealing with | Leave a comment

Catherine King MP 1

Three days ago we emailed this letter to Ms Catherine King.

57Screen Shot 2016-08-19 at 10.03.34 am copy

Ms King is the Shadow Minister for Health and Medicare in the Federal Parliament.

We would have thought that claims that medical error is causing over 360 to die every week in Australia and 1,000 a week to end up with permanent injury would be of some concern to the Labor Party in general and Ms King in particular. We’ll let you know if we hear anything from her.

A 25 Aug 2025 update: 360 every week being killed and 1,000 every week being permanently injured by medical error are pretty big numbers, wouldn’t you agree? You’d think that the politicians would be able to respond pretty quickly with what’s being done about it.

Ha ha ha! Ha ha ha! Ha ha ha! Not very likely, with the likes of Catherine King anyway.

Posted in Politicians or those who would aspire to be politicians | Leave a comment

Dr Andrew Brooks Urologist 7

When a complaint was made to the NSW Privacy Commissioner, Elizabeth Coombs, that Dr Andrew Brooks had ignored about 5 letters emailed to him by a former patient requesting copies of his health records and information to which he was entitled by law, Brooks made a complete and utter fool of himself by denying that he’d got the requests!!! – saying that the email address shown on his website didn’t work as it might be assumed by patients as it was set up so that it detected emails from patients and screened them out so he didn’t get them. (Of course no warning of this anywhere.)

Of course Brooks is always telling lies and this was another one – what he claimed isn’t technically possible, and he had responded to at least one letter emailed to him by a patient so he’d obviously received it.

And now, to complete the picture, the email address that used to be on his website is no longer there!!!!

If the former patient concerned, had emailed him a letter after his first consultation along the lines of – “In my consultation today I understood you to advise, (1) that my frequency problem arose from the fact that my bladder now only had a capacity of 200 mls, (2) a TURP operation would fix this, and (3) TURP operations have no possible detrimental side effects of which you should be warned. Have I got this right?” (Something we strongly recommend,) Brooks wouldn’t have known what to do because everything he’d told him was a lie.

No wonder he has and is making it as difficult as possible for patients and prospective patients to send him letters. A doctor with no ordinary email address, no email form, just a fax number – and no doubt this will be taken down when he realises that it’s now possible to send emails to fax numbers???

No thank you!

Posted in Urologists | Leave a comment

The Medical Profession in NSW/Australia – dealing with 25

We are constantly being told what a marvellous health care system we have in NSW/Australia, especially by the medical professional organisations like the Australian Medical Association, in particular how great all our GPs are.

(We’re not sure what they’re saying about the fact that it’s being estimated that over 350 patients a week die in Australia from medical errors and 1,000 a week suffer permanent injury from them.)

The fact is that in all likelihood 50% or more of what doctors, particularly GPs, tell us is rubbish. And the administration people in the practice in which they work don’t care – in more than 8 years in working on how to see the best doctors and avoid those who are perhaps not so good, we’re yet to find one that does. And neither do the medical professional organisations referred to above. And governments and the organisations that are supposed to regulate the health care professions really don’t either. We have to look after ourselves. How do we do that?

One of the best ways is this. After you’ve seen a doctor for the first time for whatever reason, send them a letter by email saying something like this – “In my consultation with you today I understood you to have told me blah blah blah, blah blah blah. Have I understood you correctly?” If they won’t respond in an appropriate manner to an email like this, you know they are not the sort of person who is going to stand by anything that they say or do, and you shouldn’t go back. And if they do, you can get “second opinions,” on what they’ve told you, if you have any doubts.

And, all things being equal, if they haven’t got an ordinary email address readily available, you shouldn’t have seen them in the first place.

If you go to this previous post, you will see that such an email was sent to Dr Hani Tawk yesterday, (on 16 Aug 2016.) Our reader couldn’t find an ordinary email address for Dr Tawk but used the ordinary email address of the manager of his practice to send it, and got a very nice email back saying he’d passed it on to Dr Tawk. We’re awaiting Dr Tawk’s response.

Of course, in this case we already know that what Dr Tawk said was complete rubbish. Perhaps he’ll deny that he said it?

Posted in Uncategorised | Leave a comment

Penrith Skin Cancer Foundation

This is from the front page of this clinic’s website as at today, 17 Aug 2016

44Screen Shot 2016-08-17 at 10.27.04 am copy


Firstly, If you use this link you will be taken to a page on the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission’s website, on which it is said that, on 21 Oct 2011 the Medical Professional Standards Committee found Dr Hanna “guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct” and “reprimanded” him AND that, as a consequence, the Committee would have imposed certain conditions on his registration, except for that the fact that these conditions were ALREADY IMPOSED ON HIS REGISTRATION AS A CONSEQUENCE OF SOMETHING PRIOR!!!???

Secondly, according to this article, on the first day that a 17 year old female receptionist started working at the Foundation, Dr Hanna sexually assaulted her, with the door to his office locked.

93Screen Shot 2016-08-17 at 12.17.12 pm copy

Thirdly, if you do a Google search on “Dr Nadi Hanna,” on the first page of the results that come up, there’s a link to some ratings on him that wouldn’t encourage you to consult and/or use him, to say the least.

So often we complain that there’s not enough information out there on individual doctors and practices to enable us to make informed decisions on whether to consult and/or use them or not, but readers, with Dr Hanna and his foundation, there’s SO much information that if you consult and/or use them and things don’t work out, it could be said that it’s YOUR FAULT, not their’s if you’ve been too lazy to locate it and take it into consideration.

Posted in Uncategorised | Leave a comment

Mike Baird – correspondence with 2

We are getting more and more mystified about this?

You would think that it would be madness for Mike Baird to have a situation where, if the people wish to ask him questions or raise issues with him they have to negotiate an email form which is quite difficult and unsatisfactory to use, (we’re beginning to think that it may be better to send “snail mail” to his  GPO box,) which results in them getting an automated response advising, “Don’t expect to get a response for at least a month.” And that’s before we know if he’s EVER going to respond, and if he does, how good the response will be.

You’d think that it would be so obvious that all this would make hundreds and hundreds of people think – “I wish we had another Premier!”

So why is it like this?

You would think that if he had good news to tell, he’d welcome the opportunity to tell it. Perhaps he hasn’t got any good news to tell!

Perhaps he thinks we’re still back in the 1990s when all the developments in communication technology that have happened since then hadn’t happened.

Perhaps he thinks it’s not going to make any difference to how people think of him, to his prospects in the next election? If so, how could he be so dumb?

Perhaps he thinks there isn’t the money available to have more people responding to peoples questions and the issues people want to raise?

Perhaps he thinks he wouldn’t be able to find enough people who would be good at answering emails or would be interested in doing it?

We’re find it harder and harder to understand.

One thing that would seem to be completely obvious and that is that if there’s ever going to be any improvement in all this, it’s not going to come from Mike Baird.


Posted in Politicians or those who would aspire to be politicians | Leave a comment