BowelBro #7 Lord of the lies

Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
1
Daisychain4 said:
Yes I remember and now when I think how long ago that was, it just confirms how long these two have been scheming and telling lies. Seems there is always an excuse or a story to justify everything. Bad to the core, both of them.
Click to expand...
Not 100% sure here but I think it was Cheltenham and that's in March so almost 18 months ago, AND 3 months before those suspicious bowel bro tweets about the "polyps" 🤔
 
Tricia Doll said:
She's a senior social worker so that's very concerning.
Click to expand...

I had a friend who is a social worker who was in an abusive relationship for two years. It was so jarring to me that she believed what he told her and that she kept forgiving him when he’d apologise and cry. We had lost touch by the time they broke up so no idea what ended it all. It’s very concerning that people who are naive and gullible can be responsible for others’ care. Like I said I wouldn’t be surprised if she was in on it all but there’s something about her that makes me believe she’s probably wilfully ignorant about it all.
 
Oh they read here, he did a live this morning and first thing he mentioned, getting the picc line removed, coincidence?
when we push about the book, he gives a sudden update, keeps reiterating to people about a refund and it’s no problem if people don’t want to wait, he said this morning from his live yesterday another 100 had been sold - REALLY?Then he said he hasn’t decided on the cover and will put it to a vote? Do they not print a book all together? Do the pages come out then a cover goes on?Im not understanding this
But we should get some lovely updates today as he’s sorting out his wardrobe, because any dying person wants to ensure their Burberry is hanging nicely in a closet?
---
Must need to put some fuel in the Ferrari or tax the Range Rover

IMG_0316.jpeg
 
Bill’s dear widow over on tittle was reporting the claim that despite Richard saying refunds were no problem that he was actually fighting them and blocking them when anyone attempted to actually get one. I think Richard was doing damage control because Bill’s widow did seem like a very sweet old dear.
 
I’ve been looking at them again and while I obviously can’t say they are forged for certain, I agree they are suspect.

Some things I’ve been thinking about:

The letters obviously don’t really look or feel like your standard clinic letters. There is guidance for letters produced by the Professional Record Standards Body (PRSB) so medical professionals maintain clear, consistent, and structured documentation to support delivery of care. Richard saw Dr Gaya privately, but I think the PRSB standards are considered best practice.. Dr Gaya was a consultant clinical oncologist at Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospitals for 15 years, so you would think he would be pretty familiar with best practices.

As others have said before the different fonts, font colours and switching between formats (e.g. writing dates as 12 June, 10th March, 24/5…all in the same letter!!) look dodgy, and I’m not sure consultants address each other by first names in clinical letters (“Dear Jamie…”).

As someone on Comment Café has pointed out there are also factual contradictions:
  • In the 18 April letter: “October 2022 stable disease. PCI (peritoneal cancer index) 17.” In the 12 June letter: “October 2022 stable disease. PCI (peritoneal cancer index) 24.”
  • In the 18 April letter, it states: “FOLFOXIRI-Bev to start April 2023”. In the 12 June letter, it states: “FOLFOXIRI-Bev commenced 10th March 2023”. This date predates the first letter!
Also, in any medical correspondence, whether NHS or private, precision and clarity are surely paramount for patient safety and continuity of care, not to mention legal reasons and making sure everything is accurate/compliant for auditing and quality assurance purposes…but these letters are so vague and non-specific I am wondering how a consultant could have dictated them or approved them.

Things I’ve noticed…
  • No mention of dosages when chemotherapy regimens. Would the dose of each drug in the regimen tailored to the patient would be included? Wouldn’t it also state how often the regimen is administered, how many cycles are planned, and how many of those expected cycles have been completed? Instead the letters state only how many cycles have been completed. Also, if the doses of drugs in a chemo regimen can be adjusted or modified due to side effects, there is no mention of this despite Richard’s terrible side effects.
  • No mention of other medications currently being taken – particularly given the allergic reaction, I would think any other medications a patient is taking would be mentioned to rule interactions out. I can’t see any mention of the pain medication he takes and the consultant doesn’t even give any indication of the laxatives Richard is prescribed for his constipation/obstructions.
  • “Initially felt to be T3 N1 M0” – would a consultant write about medical professionals acting on ‘feelings’? Wouldn’t they write “initially staged as” or “initially diagnosed as”? Even “believed” is better than “felt”!
  • “Several large gaps in chemotherapy due to admissions for sepsis” – a consultant would give specific durations/dates. Would they omit details about the sepsis? What caused it, how was it managed, how severe was it, is it likely to happen again and pose a risk to further treatment?
  • “Other liver metastases relatively stable” – would a consultant use “relatively” which is non-specific? Wouldn’t they give specific results or measurements?
  • “There are about 9 liver metastases in total, all small” – would a consultant use vague terms like “about” or “small”? Wouldn’t they give the specific number, sizes or measurements of metastases?
  • “Richard’s chemotherapy course since last October has been quite sporadic…” – would a constant describe chemotherapy as “quite sporadic”? Wouldn’t they detail the specific intervals?
  • “I therefore feel it would not be unreasonable to give him a trial of further FOLFOXIRI chemotherapy” – so now this consultant is acting on feelings and uncertainties…wouldn’t he clearly state his recommendations?
  • “There is a theoretical risk of primary tumour perforation, but this risk is relatively low” – wouldn’t a consultant clearly state the risk and refer to relevant data or studies to quantify it?
  • “He was not well enough to come to the phone” – given the severity of the patient's condition wouldn’t a consultant explain why a patient was not well enough to attend? Symptoms he was experiencing, and what they could be attributed to? (Other than “extreme discomfort”, “quite nauseous” and “quite exhausted”…I mean he could have a hangover or eaten a dodgy prawn for all that tells anyone!!!)
  • “He was admitted to hospital over the weekend with constipation … and required laxatives in order to get his stoma moving again” – I can’t believe any consultant writes a clinical letter to another consultant and talks about getting a stoma “moving again” when he could talk about interventions or use of laxatives to alleviate the reduced stoma output!
  • “Some of the effects described, like difficulty passing urine, could be secondary to the atropine injection administered before the irinotecan, but the flushing and tightness in the throat do sound like a form of reaction to oxaliplatin…” – “some” and “do sound like” is informal and non-committal. “Some” of the symptoms? Which symptoms were they, as the letter doesn’t detail a comprehensive list of symptoms encountered as part of this allergic reaction. Also, “do sound like”…wouldn’t a consultant talk about symptoms being ‘indicative’ of a potential reaction or ‘consistent’ with known side effects or reactions?
  • “I am keen if possible to get a couple more cycles in followed by some imaging…” – a “couple more” cycles? “Some” imaging?
  • “Lisa and Richard are going to have a discussion about the best way forward. At the moment he is feeling quite depressed about the situation, and this is completely understandable. He will make a decision by the end of the week as to what he wants to do for the next cycle” – this all feels a bit off. Richard is the patient, not Lisa, so surely he would be mentioned first and “best way forward” and “quite depressed” are both vague and colloquial. Why would any medical professional describe a patient as “quite depressed” when they could say, for example, that they are experiencing emotional distress?
  • Cromwell Hospital, the London Clinic and GenesisCare UK are listed at the top of the letter, I assume as they have received copies, but not Richard's GP??
These things all seem quite minor in isolation but combined they make me seriously wonder if he has forged or tampered with these letters.

Then add in all the other weird stuff like the GFM, creating and dissolving multiple limited companies and consistently failing to file accounts yet bragging about how wealthy he is, lying about weight loss surgery etc…he should be investigated.
 

Attachments

  • CD136F4F-E439-429C-BF0A-3717017044C4.jpeg
    CD136F4F-E439-429C-BF0A-3717017044C4.jpeg
    59.1 KB · Views: 33
  • BD71D770-B775-44E4-8568-D71C7301A643.jpeg
    BD71D770-B775-44E4-8568-D71C7301A643.jpeg
    71.7 KB · Views: 34
arthur spooner said:
Oh they read here, he did a live this morning and first thing he mentioned, getting the picc line removed, coincidence?
when we push about the book, he gives a sudden update, keeps reiterating to people about a refund and it’s no problem if people don’t want to wait, he said this morning from his live yesterday another 100 had been sold - REALLY?Then he said he hasn’t decided on the cover and will put it to a vote? Do they not print a book all together? Do the pages come out then a cover goes on?Im not understanding this
But we should get some lovely updates today as he’s sorting out his wardrobe, because any dying person wants to ensure their Burberry is hanging nicely in a closet?
---
Must need to put some fuel in the Ferrari or tax the Range Rover

View attachment 2388293 q
Click to expand...
If they are selling their house, why spending time sorting wardrobes and clothing? Just to later have to pack it all up?
 
Saydee said:
If they are selling their house, why spending time sorting wardrobes and clothing? Just to later have to pack it all up?
Click to expand...

Indeed and he mentioned in the video that the built in wardrobes have been finished for a while but they haven’t got around to sorting their stuff for them yet. Such a strange thing to waste money on if they knew Lisa was selling, and to waste time on now that the house is up for sale. Almost like they’re not planning on selling really.

someone on the live asked where they were moving to and he replied ‘oh we’re miles and miles away from thinking about anything like that’. Seems odd to have committed to selling without having an idea of where to move to next (Ie having an actual reason to sell). Also thought it was a bit of a Freudian slip when he said ‘miles and miles away’.
 
Bahbahbah said:
I’ve been looking at them again and while I obviously can’t say they are forged for certain, I agree they are suspect.

Some things I’ve been thinking about:

The letters obviously don’t really look or feel like your standard clinic letters. There is guidance for letters produced by the Professional Record Standards Body (PRSB) so medical professionals maintain clear, consistent, and structured documentation to support delivery of care. Richard saw Dr Gaya privately, but I think the PRSB standards are considered best practice.. Dr Gaya was a consultant clinical oncologist at Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospitals for 15 years, so you would think he would be pretty familiar with best practices.

As others have said before the different fonts, font colours and switching between formats (e.g. writing dates as 12 June, 10th March, 24/5…all in the same letter!!) look dodgy, and I’m not sure consultants address each other by first names in clinical letters (“Dear Jamie…”).

As someone on Comment Café has pointed out there are also factual contradictions:
  • In the 18 April letter: “October 2022 stable disease. PCI (peritoneal cancer index) 17.” In the 12 June letter: “October 2022 stable disease. PCI (peritoneal cancer index) 24.”
  • In the 18 April letter, it states: “FOLFOXIRI-Bev to start April 2023”. In the 12 June letter, it states: “FOLFOXIRI-Bev commenced 10th March 2023”. This date predates the first letter!
Also, in any medical correspondence, whether NHS or private, precision and clarity are surely paramount for patient safety and continuity of care, not to mention legal reasons and making sure everything is accurate/compliant for auditing and quality assurance purposes…but these letters are so vague and non-specific I am wondering how a consultant could have dictated them or approved them.

Things I’ve noticed…
  • No mention of dosages when chemotherapy regimens. Would the dose of each drug in the regimen tailored to the patient would be included? Wouldn’t it also state how often the regimen is administered, how many cycles are planned, and how many of those expected cycles have been completed? Instead the letters state only how many cycles have been completed. Also, if the doses of drugs in a chemo regimen can be adjusted or modified due to side effects, there is no mention of this despite Richard’s terrible side effects.
  • No mention of other medications currently being taken – particularly given the allergic reaction, I would think any other medications a patient is taking would be mentioned to rule interactions out. I can’t see any mention of the pain medication he takes and the consultant doesn’t even give any indication of the laxatives Richard is prescribed for his constipation/obstructions.
  • “Initially felt to be T3 N1 M0” – would a consultant write about medical professionals acting on ‘feelings’? Wouldn’t they write “initially staged as” or “initially diagnosed as”? Even “believed” is better than “felt”!
  • “Several large gaps in chemotherapy due to admissions for sepsis” – a consultant would give specific durations/dates. Would they omit details about the sepsis? What caused it, how was it managed, how severe was it, is it likely to happen again and pose a risk to further treatment?
  • “Other liver metastases relatively stable” – would a consultant use “relatively” which is non-specific? Wouldn’t they give specific results or measurements?
  • “There are about 9 liver metastases in total, all small” – would a consultant use vague terms like “about” or “small”? Wouldn’t they give the specific number, sizes or measurements of metastases?
  • “Richard’s chemotherapy course since last October has been quite sporadic…” – would a constant describe chemotherapy as “quite sporadic”? Wouldn’t they detail the specific intervals?
  • “I therefore feel it would not be unreasonable to give him a trial of further FOLFOXIRI chemotherapy” – so now this consultant is acting on feelings and uncertainties…wouldn’t he clearly state his recommendations?
  • “There is a theoretical risk of primary tumour perforation, but this risk is relatively low” – wouldn’t a consultant clearly state the risk and refer to relevant data or studies to quantify it?
  • “He was not well enough to come to the phone” – given the severity of the patient's condition wouldn’t a consultant explain why a patient was not well enough to attend? Symptoms he was experiencing, and what they could be attributed to? (Other than “extreme discomfort”, “quite nauseous” and “quite exhausted”…I mean he could have a hangover or eaten a dodgy prawn for all that tells anyone!!!)
  • “He was admitted to hospital over the weekend with constipation … and required laxatives in order to get his stoma moving again” – I can’t believe any consultant writes a clinical letter to another consultant and talks about getting a stoma “moving again” when he could talk about interventions or use of laxatives to alleviate the reduced stoma output!
  • “Some of the effects described, like difficulty passing urine, could be secondary to the atropine injection administered before the irinotecan, but the flushing and tightness in the throat do sound like a form of reaction to oxaliplatin…” – “some” and “do sound like” is informal and non-committal. “Some” of the symptoms? Which symptoms were they, as the letter doesn’t detail a comprehensive list of symptoms encountered as part of this allergic reaction. Also, “do sound like”…wouldn’t a consultant talk about symptoms being ‘indicative’ of a potential reaction or ‘consistent’ with known side effects or reactions?
  • “I am keen if possible to get a couple more cycles in followed by some imaging…” – a “couple more” cycles? “Some” imaging?
  • “Lisa and Richard are going to have a discussion about the best way forward. At the moment he is feeling quite depressed about the situation, and this is completely understandable. He will make a decision by the end of the week as to what he wants to do for the next cycle” – this all feels a bit off. Richard is the patient, not Lisa, so surely he would be mentioned first and “best way forward” and “quite depressed” are both vague and colloquial. Why would any medical professional describe a patient as “quite depressed” when they could say, for example, that they are experiencing emotional distress?
  • Cromwell Hospital, the London Clinic and GenesisCare UK are listed at the top of the letter, I assume as they have received copies, but not Richard's GP??
These things all seem quite minor in isolation but combined they make me seriously wonder if he has forged or tampered with these letters.

Then add in all the other weird stuff like the GFM, creating and dissolving multiple limited companies and consistently failing to file accounts yet bragging about how wealthy he is, lying about weight loss surgery etc…he should be investigated.
Click to expand...

Excellent analysis! Some further errors or inappropriate language on the formal medical letter:

- “represented with bowel obstruction” instead of ‘presented with’
- “it would not be right to go on and ablate…” ‘go on?’ - a dr would say ‘perform’ or ‘go ahead with’.
- “compared to mri in October” - should be ‘compared WITH mri DATED October XX’
- “his next best option would be Lonsurf or regirafebib”… one drug is capitalized, the other not.

Also what elective surgery was scheduled for May 2022 (as referenced in the letter)? also one sentence reads ‘loop colostomy formed’- shouldn’t this read ‘loop colostomy PERFORMED’ or ‘formation of loop colostomy performed’.

Me sniffs a letter written by someone who left school at 15 with no qualifications who didn’t expect educated folk to dissect it.
 
in private cancer care do they still have mdt meetings? We were told for my daughters cancer that after certain procedures etc we weren’t allowed to be given any results until things were discussed with the team and at least one other consultant. That is the rules now. So seems strange all this “I Thjnk, I feel” stuff in the letters? This would also contradict what the nurse has written and how he was delivered news….would it really be done like that?!
 
Mildred500 said:
in private cancer care do they still have mdt meetings? We were told for my daughters cancer that after certain procedures etc we weren’t allowed to be given any results until things were discussed with the team and at least one other consultant. That is the rules now. So seems strange all this “I Thjnk, I feel” stuff in the letters? This would also contradict what the nurse has written and how he was delivered news….would it really be done like that?!
Click to expand...
Same for us
 
Mildred500 said:
in private cancer care do they still have mdt meetings? We were told for my daughters cancer that after certain procedures etc we weren’t allowed to be given any results until things were discussed with the team and at least one other consultant. That is the rules now. So seems strange all this “I Thjnk, I feel” stuff in the letters? This would also contradict what the nurse has written and how he was delivered news….would it really be done like that?!
Click to expand...

Plus 1. I had the experience of having a scan and as someone with a medical background, I asked specific questions of the consultant performing the scans. Even then- while she did give me her opinion (suspicion of cancer and roughly what stage we were looking at)- she was careful to emphasise it would need to wait until biopsy and MDT ten days later. When the outcome was different this part was then not referenced at all in the letter, as her feelings and opinions were irrelevant; instead we dealt with facts.
 
Tricia Doll said:
Not 100% sure here but I think it was Cheltenham and that's in March so almost 18 months ago, AND 3 months before those suspicious bowel bro tweets about the "polyps" 🤔
Click to expand...
Fairly certain it was Wimbledon.

people gossiping around the village.

it was on that live he said that he wouldn’t use the GFM for his own treatment. He didn’t mention it would be for his honeymoon 🤪
 
Mildred500 said:
I don’t really know how to go back and find the screenshots of those letters, but could it be that he did in fact have some treatment with Dr Gaya and he has gone in and edited the letters to suit his own narrative?
Click to expand...

I wondered this too. Particularly as the letter discussing the appointment Dr Gaya had with Lisa as Richard was too ill to come to the phone came at a time when Richard was under a lot of suspicion from rattle users for lying about having chemo etc
 
Bahbahbah said:
I’ve been looking at them again and while I obviously can’t say they are forged for certain, I agree they are suspect.

Some things I’ve been thinking about:

The letters obviously don’t really look or feel like your standard clinic letters. There is guidance for letters produced by the Professional Record Standards Body (PRSB) so medical professionals maintain clear, consistent, and structured documentation to support delivery of care. Richard saw Dr Gaya privately, but I think the PRSB standards are considered best practice.. Dr Gaya was a consultant clinical oncologist at Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospitals for 15 years, so you would think he would be pretty familiar with best practices.

As others have said before the different fonts, font colours and switching between formats (e.g. writing dates as 12 June, 10th March, 24/5…all in the same letter!!) look dodgy, and I’m not sure consultants address each other by first names in clinical letters (“Dear Jamie…”).

As someone on Comment Café has pointed out there are also factual contradictions:
  • In the 18 April letter: “October 2022 stable disease. PCI (peritoneal cancer index) 17.” In the 12 June letter: “October 2022 stable disease. PCI (peritoneal cancer index) 24.”
  • In the 18 April letter, it states: “FOLFOXIRI-Bev to start April 2023”. In the 12 June letter, it states: “FOLFOXIRI-Bev commenced 10th March 2023”. This date predates the first letter!
Also, in any medical correspondence, whether NHS or private, precision and clarity are surely paramount for patient safety and continuity of care, not to mention legal reasons and making sure everything is accurate/compliant for auditing and quality assurance purposes…but these letters are so vague and non-specific I am wondering how a consultant could have dictated them or approved them.

Things I’ve noticed…
  • No mention of dosages when chemotherapy regimens. Would the dose of each drug in the regimen tailored to the patient would be included? Wouldn’t it also state how often the regimen is administered, how many cycles are planned, and how many of those expected cycles have been completed? Instead the letters state only how many cycles have been completed. Also, if the doses of drugs in a chemo regimen can be adjusted or modified due to side effects, there is no mention of this despite Richard’s terrible side effects.
  • No mention of other medications currently being taken – particularly given the allergic reaction, I would think any other medications a patient is taking would be mentioned to rule interactions out. I can’t see any mention of the pain medication he takes and the consultant doesn’t even give any indication of the laxatives Richard is prescribed for his constipation/obstructions.
  • “Initially felt to be T3 N1 M0” – would a consultant write about medical professionals acting on ‘feelings’? Wouldn’t they write “initially staged as” or “initially diagnosed as”? Even “believed” is better than “felt”!
  • “Several large gaps in chemotherapy due to admissions for sepsis” – a consultant would give specific durations/dates. Would they omit details about the sepsis? What caused it, how was it managed, how severe was it, is it likely to happen again and pose a risk to further treatment?
  • “Other liver metastases relatively stable” – would a consultant use “relatively” which is non-specific? Wouldn’t they give specific results or measurements?
  • “There are about 9 liver metastases in total, all small” – would a consultant use vague terms like “about” or “small”? Wouldn’t they give the specific number, sizes or measurements of metastases?
  • “Richard’s chemotherapy course since last October has been quite sporadic…” – would a constant describe chemotherapy as “quite sporadic”? Wouldn’t they detail the specific intervals?
  • “I therefore feel it would not be unreasonable to give him a trial of further FOLFOXIRI chemotherapy” – so now this consultant is acting on feelings and uncertainties…wouldn’t he clearly state his recommendations?
  • “There is a theoretical risk of primary tumour perforation, but this risk is relatively low” – wouldn’t a consultant clearly state the risk and refer to relevant data or studies to quantify it?
  • “He was not well enough to come to the phone” – given the severity of the patient's condition wouldn’t a consultant explain why a patient was not well enough to attend? Symptoms he was experiencing, and what they could be attributed to? (Other than “extreme discomfort”, “quite nauseous” and “quite exhausted”…I mean he could have a hangover or eaten a dodgy prawn for all that tells anyone!!!)
  • “He was admitted to hospital over the weekend with constipation … and required laxatives in order to get his stoma moving again” – I can’t believe any consultant writes a clinical letter to another consultant and talks about getting a stoma “moving again” when he could talk about interventions or use of laxatives to alleviate the reduced stoma output!
  • “Some of the effects described, like difficulty passing urine, could be secondary to the atropine injection administered before the irinotecan, but the flushing and tightness in the throat do sound like a form of reaction to oxaliplatin…” – “some” and “do sound like” is informal and non-committal. “Some” of the symptoms? Which symptoms were they, as the letter doesn’t detail a comprehensive list of symptoms encountered as part of this allergic reaction. Also, “do sound like”…wouldn’t a consultant talk about symptoms being ‘indicative’ of a potential reaction or ‘consistent’ with known side effects or reactions?
  • “I am keen if possible to get a couple more cycles in followed by some imaging…” – a “couple more” cycles? “Some” imaging?
  • “Lisa and Richard are going to have a discussion about the best way forward. At the moment he is feeling quite depressed about the situation, and this is completely understandable. He will make a decision by the end of the week as to what he wants to do for the next cycle” – this all feels a bit off. Richard is the patient, not Lisa, so surely he would be mentioned first and “best way forward” and “quite depressed” are both vague and colloquial. Why would any medical professional describe a patient as “quite depressed” when they could say, for example, that they are experiencing emotional distress?
  • Cromwell Hospital, the London Clinic and GenesisCare UK are listed at the top of the letter, I assume as they have received copies, but not Richard's GP??
These things all seem quite minor in isolation but combined they make me seriously wonder if he has forged or tampered with these letters.

Then add in all the other weird stuff like the GFM, creating and dissolving multiple limited companies and consistently failing to file accounts yet bragging about how wealthy he is, lying about weight loss surgery etc…he should be investigated.
Click to expand...

As someone who works in cancer care, while some of these things might seem odd… consultants do often refer to things informally. They are dictating so it will be written as they say it, and letters are often not approved to avoid delays in the letters being sent out. The inconsistencies in dates are worrying though
---
Mildred500 said:
in private cancer care do they still have mdt meetings? We were told for my daughters cancer that after certain procedures etc we weren’t allowed to be given any results until things were discussed with the team and at least one other consultant. That is the rules now. So seems strange all this “I Thjnk, I feel” stuff in the letters? This would also contradict what the nurse has written and how he was delivered news….would it really be done like that?!
Click to expand...

Private patients are often discussed at NHS MDT meetings - usually network meetings
 
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
Back
Top