In August 2013 it was reported that the Government is to allow the National Health Service of Britain to sell the medical records of patients to third parties for the princely sum of just £1. It is suggested that the information will be made so that the individual cannot be identified but with rare illnesses it would be easy for interested parties to discover the identity of those individuals. Such a move makes a complete mockery of the claims for the confidentiality of Medical Records and could put many patients at risk of abuse of their privacy and rights but there is a very much more important issue that is being overlooked.
Many people, especially those with "controversial" illnesses such as pesticide poisoning vaccine damage or who have been harmed by radiation or during military service, have been given false diagnosis in order to suppress the causes of their illnesses. It has been admitted by an official of government that such patients usually find it hard, if not impossible to obtain their full medical records even though they need them to prove both their diagnosis and to obtain the correct treatment from the authorities. Information obtained by "researchers" would therefore be unreliable at best and positively misleading or even dangerous at worst.
If patients are unable to obtain their medical records then it is made impossible for them to challenge any false information implanted in those records by those who wish to hide the true causes of illness. In addition there have been numerous cases where patients have had their illnesses and treatments added to the medical records of another person with the same name and birth date in error by doctors. In many cases this has resulted in doctors who read those notes attempting to treat the patient for illnesses that they have never had or failing to treat them correctly for the illness which they actually suffer from.
To deny patients access to their records but to allow researchers who will draw conclusions from records which may contain gross errors is obviously a dangerous thing to do and this is why so many people opted out of the government plans to put all the medical records of every patient into an on-line data base that would be freely accessible by researchers and doctors alike. Those wishes of patients seem to be being ignored.
In 2000 the Code of Practice on Openness in the NHS stated under the heading
Personal Health Records that
The NHS must keep patients personal details confidential but people normally have a right to see their own records. Depending on who made the records, patients can obtain access through the relevant Trust, Health Authority, family doctor or dentist. Access must be given within the timetable in the Access to Health Records Act 1990 (or, for records held on computer, the Data Protection Act 1984). Under these Acts, patients may be charged for access to their records.
The latest attempts to gain access to the personal medical records of patients in the UK come under the guise of what they term the "Summary Care Record" which they claim will give doctors treating patients in an emergency direct access to their medical records, and the General Practice Extraction Service (GPES) by which doctors will be forced to send confidential medical records to a central database. This means that those records cannot possibly be in a form that does not identify the patient because the purpose is to have information about the patient to hand in an emergency and the patients will have to be tracked to ensure that the records are properly maintained.
This open approach to confidential records for third party access does not accord with official actions in cases were the release of records could be embarrassing for officials of government or the regulators who approve the use of dangerous chemicals.
During the High Court hearing in the UK of the Hill v Tomkins Organophosphorus Poisoning case in 1997 the Judge, Lady Justice Smith declared that "There can be no excuse for the non-production of Medical Records" but as will be seen in this article that comment is not representative of the reality.
In many cases, including the one detailed below, vital Medical Records were withheld by the medical profession despite court orders demanding their release. It was reported in the press that this is more common than most may realise and the explanation is found in the term "Medical Special Case Files".
When records contain information that may harm the patient they can be withheld but it seems that there are other records that may also be withheld at the discretion of the medical profession and it is part of the General Medical Council's Rules of Conduct that doctors may withhold information if by releasing it they may face criminal charges. The GMC were asked to confirm or deny that this could result in doctors hiding evidence that could be used against them in court but answers came there none.
However "The NHS Constitution" published in March 2013 contains the statement
You have the right of access to your own health records and to have any factual inaccuracies corrected.
It begins "The NHS belongs to the people.
It is there to improve our health and wellbeing, supporting us to keep
mentally and physically well, to get better when we are ill and, when
we cannot fully recover, to stay as well as we can to the end of our
lives. It works at the limits of science bringing the highest levels of
human knowledge and skill to save lives and improve health.
It touches our lives at times of basic human need, when care and
compassion are what matter most
It is there to improve our health and wellbeing, supporting us to keep
In 2013 the Coalition Government promised to clean up the NHS and to allow more freedom for staff to speak out when they knew things were going wrong but the use of lawyers to hide the truth continues.
The following may be of interest.
Please note that when the perversion of Justice had succeeded, causing the cases in the OP group action never to be tried in court and the Benefits claims to be lost, it was discovered that what was hidden by the refusal to release the full medical records was the scientific evidence by way of blood tests, respiratory function tests, heart scans etc that would have proved beyond any doubt that this man had been poisoned by organophosphorus chemicals, which unknown to him had been admitted to be an illegal mix of two OPs and their solvents, which had been stored and disposed of unlawfully.
It was also discovered that lawyers acting for the defence were also involved in legal actions on behalf of the NHS and so would have been able to influence what medical records could be released to the plaintiffs.
Interestingly the plaintiff's legal teams claim to have repeatedly paid several NHS Trusts the fees of some £50 each time for copies of the full medical records yet admitted that they had never been provided.
One solicitor actually wrote to the plaintiff suggesting that he was wrong to place such importance on the medical records despite having written a paper declaring how important the actual medical records, as opposed to opinions, were as evidence supporting the cases of the plaintiffs.
Having diagnosed poisoning and then withdrawn that diagnosis under pressure from officials of government who supplied false information the hospital staff involved commented that they wished to re-instate the diagnosis but that they dared not do so "for fear of opening the floodgates"
This is both an admission that the decision was political rather than medical but the statement obviously indicated that it was known that many more people had been poisoned for if they had not there would be no flood.
Perhaps more importantly those involved knew that they were acting unlawfully and stated
"If the men in white wigs get to hear about this there will be all Hell to pay
On that they were also wrong since several High Court judges were given that very information but they refused to believe that any official or doctor employed by government would act so corruptly. The judges were wrong.
Despite the evidence of perjury, perversion of justice and contempt of court in this case no authority dared to investigate or to uphold the laws that should protect patients and the rule of law.
Perhaps the true situation was explained when all attempts to have the issues investigated by the police failed and it was found that the false information was still being used against the plaintiff years later. Knowing that deception and fraud were obvious at all stages attempts were made to report the criminality to the Serious Fraud Office and to the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau. Both refused to get involved but recommended that the report was made to "Action Fraud", which controls all reports of fraud, with the promise that a crime number would be issued and the Police would then investigate. Instead their spokesman simply stated that the report was not acceptable to their internet-based reporting tool but that in any event "These people are obviously well-protected.."
As the reporter of the crimes wrote
"Sadly blind eyes were turned at every stage leaving me certain that the deception perjury, fraud, and perversion of justice are not merely condoned but are encouraged at the highest levels in our society."
The original posting follows....
In 1992 after poisoning by an illegal mixture of two organophosphorus pesticides I was referred to several hospitals for tests and diagnosis, including the local hospital, St Mary's Newport, Isle of Wight, Southampton General, Royal South Hants also in Southampton, Southern General Hospital in Glasgow, and Guy's & St Thomas' Hospitals in London.
Several trips to Guy's Hospital in 1992 and 1993, included two weeks as an in-patient for extensive tests following preliminary examination to ensure that my case fulfilled the criteria for OP poisoning.
In February 1994 I was handed my medical records. The front cover declared that it should not be handed to the patient. My wife and I read the comments about organophosphorus poisoning and saw the explanation marks written by the blood pressure figures.
Despite the fact that the appointment that day was to determine if the damage to the visual fields had worsened there were no records available and the staff only had one letter from Dr GlynVolans who was the Head of the Poisons Unit. It seems that Dr Volans arranged for this false test in order to counter the earlier evidence of brain, optic nerve and autonomic nervous system damage, but the Trust refused to clarify the situation.
By then, I had contacted a Solicitor and he asked the Hospital for copies of my records. He was sent just 22 pages of letters written by the doctors, most of which were by then outdated by events. He accepted them as the "full records".
The Lawyer never did obtain the full copies, despite requiring them for any accurate assessment of the case. Dr Volans wrote three letters of differing opinion on my case within a week of the Writ being served and the full records were essential but nothing changed.
On 2nd December 1994 Dr Volans wrote to my GP withdrawing the diagnosis and claiming that even the initial symptoms were not those of OP poisoning. On the same day he wrote to the DSS confirming that my symptoms were those of chronic OP poisoning and stating that despite all the tests done, which included psychiatric and psychological assessments, they could find no alternative diagnosis to that of poisoning. However, he wrote to the Health & Safety Executive suggesting that their Psychiatrist, who I understand is employed by the chemical company, whose product was involved in my exposure, should have seen me more.
HSE had failed to investigate my accident but despite that they claimed that there had been no incident, no exposure and that therefore I could not have been poisoned.
I asked the Guy's & St Thomas' Trust for an explanation but they refused to come clean and so I reported them to the Health Service Ombudsman who refused to investigate anything other than the failure to address the complaint.
He upheld my complaint and I asked him for copies of my medical records. He suggested that I contacted the Trust to receive forms, which I had to have witnessed. They then claimed to have lost the forms, but I repeated the exercise and on the 23rd January 1997 just 43 pages of medical records arrived in the post accompanied by a note stating as follows:
Obviously untrue. I wrote asking again for full copies of the records. On 6th February 1997 they sent just 9 sheets from St Thomas' Hospital.
Records were still being withheld so I wrote requesting compliance with the Act. A further 243 sheets arrived in the post, but many pages were repeated simply to bulk out the parcel. The letter was pre-dated the 1st April 1997.
I wrote again asking that they provide the full copies of the records as requested. This time they sent just 7 sheets from St Thomas' Hospital, all repeats of sheets already released and the letter proclaimed that I now had the complete records. Wrong again.
More letters followed and after contact with my MP, another parcel arrived dated 22nd January 1998, with some 272 sheets but again mostly repeats of earlier papers and with repeated copies to bulk up the numbers enclosed.
I knew that there were still vital papers missing, not least of which were the results of the very first blood and urine tests which triggered the referral. However, included was a copy of a letter to the defendants in my case who obviously had no problem obtaining my records? A hand written note gave the total number of sheets copied to the defendant's lawyers as 312.
Obligingly the Poisons Unit sent them further sheets on request.
The Trust insisted that I named and identified the missing papers, and even asked for those I had to be returned. They suggested that I should risk my already deteriorating health and travel to London to examine the files, but clearly even if I did so, there was no guarantee that the missing papers would be in the files shown to me.
I listed some of the missing files, including the "reference samples" but still they refused to supply full copies.
In 1999, still without the full records, I appeared before a DSS Tribunal. The Chairman admitted that in cases of Gulf War Syndrome, vaccine damage and in chemical poisoning it was usual to find that the claimants could not obtain their medical records.
In July 2000 I tried the Data Protection Agency but they refused to help unless I gave details of the missing records. I did so but they still refused to help.
In October 2000 I wrote to the GMC asking if Doctors can withhold records if by releasing them they could face criminal charges. They promised to clarify the position but then refused to reply to letters.
I wrote again to the Trust.
'Dear Mr Matthews,
I refer you to the considerable correspondence during 1994, 1995, and in 1996, 1997 and 1998 regarding your claims to have supplied full copies of my medical records.
Yesterday an individual who has professional understanding of the ways of the medical profession examined the records available to me and it has been reported to me that it is obvious that vital information has been withheld.
You are, I am sure, aware of your legal responsibilities in this matter.
I now also have evidence that the defendants in the legal case in which I am involved have been provided access to, and copies of, those records. My own lawyers have claimed to have been unable to obtain copies and in fact have claimed that the Trust would have destroyed any records not already available to me. The legal action has been considerably compromised and delayed by your refusal to release the full copies of those records as requested on numerous occasions.
The records are germane to my case both in law and in the ability to obtain rightful benefits.
They are also vital in order that the doctors helping me can provide the safest treatments.
My health has deteriorated over the years and I have been advised by doctors not to travel.
Your staff knew very well that legal cases were underway and that destroying evidence would be an offence and I have therefore questioned the accuracy of the statement made by the lawyers, which I do not believe to be true. However, the Trust has persisted in its claim that copies of the complete set of records has been provided and yet your staff failed even to supply those specifically listed as missing, at the request of your staff, on 17th October 1997.
I understand that the Trust Chief Executive is to be made liable for breaches in regulation and I am sure that you are aware that I could issue a writ myself to force disclosure. I have no great desire to embarrass the Trust by taking such action but it is clear that all the OP cases are about to be challenged through lack of medical evidence and the actions of the Trust in hiding that evidence must eventually be explained.
I look forward to a prompt response on this occasion and to receiving full copies of the records.'
However, the Trust had a new Chief Executive, Dr Jonathan Michael.
I wrote to Dr Michael:
'It seems that the only way we can get those records is to force disclosure from the defendant and if the papers do not match with those the Trust sent to me then I would suggest that this would be further evidence that the Trust failed to comply with the obligations imposed by the Act
Incidentally I go to Court on Thursday and this may be the last legal opportunity I have to put supporting evidence for my rightful benefit claim appeal. The Court has already been notified of the difficulties I have had in obtaining the full medical records. I did inform you that time was limited.
The claims repeatedly made by the Trust that my full records have been supplied to me are clearly false but a letter in the HSE file indicates that the National Poisons Unit is some 4 miles from Guy's Hospital and it may be that your staff removed certain information there in order to prevent my access to them. Perhaps the missing papers are with the Medical Toxicology Unit?
I think it is about time that information was released to me and the efforts to hide the truth about this disgraceful affair ended. Thanks again for the belated reply.'
There was no response. The Commissioner believed what the Trust said and assumed that there was no supporting evidence.
I wrote again to the Trust:
'You claim, once again falsely, that I "have already had several sets of the complete records held by the Trust". When Leigh Day & Co asked for the complete set of records on several occasions in 1994 they were supplied with just 22 pages of letters of opinion and no actual records at all but it was also claimed that they represented the "full records" held by the Trust. .As any schoolboy could tell you none of those parcels represented the "Full copies" of records and none of them included correspondence with the HSE released to me under the Data Protection Act. Clearly the Trust was more willing to comply with lawyers acting for my employer who had lied about the chemicals involved than they were in protecting their patient from such abuses. The only reason my GP sent me to the Trust was to establish a diagnosis. Many invasive and painful procedures were used in order to obtain the information in those records.
In fact it would seem that sometimes incorrect procedures were used which would technically have been assault, as seen with some blood tests and the muscle biopsy (insufficient sample taken).
Failing to supply the full copies of the records simply adds weight to that view. If the Trust does not hold the missing papers even though you wrote that you had the complete file then perhaps you could tell me where those vital papers have gone and who authorised the removal? I would remind you that the Trust staff knew that the records were required for evidence.
In 2001 Data Protection papers from the Health & Safety Executive show collusion between Dr Volans and HSE. They were offered full copies of the records.
Court papers show that the Defence had records from all the hospitals.
I have partial records from the Guy's & St Thomas' Trust and those sent to my GP by St Mary's. I have nothing from the Southampton Hospitals. The Southern General Glasgow denies I ever attended.
The Witshire Police force investigating the OP experiments at Porton Down, linked to Doctors at St Thomas' Hospital, suggested that it was vital to protect my records and samples to avoid destruction after 10 years. I have no idea if this was done but Lawyers, who paid the hospitals for copies of records they did not receive, say the samples have been destroyed.
Note - newly added information.
On 7th February 2007 papers that had been released by the various legal firms who had been involved in the group Oeganophosphate poisoning litigation were found to be very much filtered but it was clear that serious wrongs had been done. The folders marked "Medical Records" were all empty but within the other files were the long-sought-after results of the intial cholinesterase tests performed by Guy's Hospital in 1992.
THE HIDDEN CHOLINESTERASE RESULTS WERE REVEALED AT LAST
Both the Guys & St Thomas Trust and the lawyers had repeatedly been asked to provide those test results but all had refused to release them.
The reason for that soon became clear.
According to the USA Environmenmtal Protection Agency and other authorities "a cholinesterase depression of 25% or more is generally regarded as evidence of excessive absorption".
On 30th September 1992 and at many other times after that the toxicologist had confirmed that there was no doubt about the poisoning diagnosis and by that time they had not only tested a blood sample taken on 20th July 1992 by a GP, over 6 months after the incident, but also another taken by the hospital toxicologist on 16th September 1992.
During hospital admission in July 1993 more samples were taken for a whole host of reasons including testing cholinesterase levels.
All results were reported at the time to be within normal limits yet normal merely refers to pre-exposure levels for the individual because levels vary so much in humans.
Interestingly the urine was untested, despite OP metabolites in urine indicating exposure, and Lindane was not detected in the sample, despite exposure to that persistent chemical over many years.
In 1994 it was claimed that the symptoms were not consistent with poisoning, even though everyone involved knew that they were.
The cholinesterase results proved it, so they had to be hidden.
The first blood cholinesterase test was done some 26 weeks after the incident that caused the exposure. The initial test results showed that in July 1992 Plasma cholinesterase levels were 5.86 KU/l. Just 8 weeks and 2 days later on September 1992 Plasma levels were 8. 2 KU/l. Almost a year later in July 1993 Plasma levels were 9.0 KU/l and it must be assumed that the furthest sample date from the exposure would be the figure closest to the normal level which must be at least 9.0 KU/l.
Calculations on those levels gives a depression of about 35% in July 1992 and still 28% in September 1992. Even if the figures available at the time in October 1992 were used to establish a base line and 8.2 was used as the base level it would seem that levels were still 28.5% below normal at that time. That explained why Dr Murray was so adamant about the poisoning diagnosis.
What was interesting was that for the only results available the Red Cell cholinesterase levels actually fell during the "recovery" period from 20.4 KU/l in July 1992 to 17.1 KU/l in September 1992.
So why did they change their opinion, hide the evidence and continue the cover-up to this day - The full medical records have NEVER been released despite orders from the High Court.
The explanation was found in those legal files. A farm worker who was involved in the incident produced a false statement, said to be written and signed by him despite his claims to be unable to read or write. That statement, made on the 8th February 1993, long before any legal action had been contemplated was not only completely dishonest but it was also claimed to have been made at an address unknown to anyone. A fictional statement made at a fictional address, by a man who frequently claimed not to be able to read or write, stated that there was no incident, no chemical involvement and no smell to the chemical, even though one of the chemicals was identified by its distinctive smell and he had complained about it himself at the time.
In released internal documents from the Health and Safety Executive it is clear that they also referred to that fictional address in an internal report, indicating that they had been given sight of that statement. It is also clear that the HSE put pressure on the doctors at the hospital and it is likely that the doctors believed the HSE version of events which was effectively - No incident = no exposure = a proven impossibility of poisoning.
The poisoning diagnosis was then withdrawn in 1994 after further comfirmation of damage to the central nevous system, brain and autonomic nervous system damage- but that withdrawal came too late.
Second opinion by doctors not connected to the hspital had already confirmed poisoning and further opinions plus specialist blood tests later also confirmed the OP Poisoning diagnosis.
The cover-up had to begin in earnest and as a result the full power of the NHS, Department for Work and Pensions and HSE were waged against the only person reporting the facts.
Their deception cost the country a small fortiune, caused great loss and suffering to their victim and his family and wasted official time and resources.
The false statement had fooled everyone from the doctors to the judges in the High Court. In time it was realised that the lawyers acting for the defence also acted for the NHS. Hence the need to hide the vital medical records.
All was explained but when challenged answers came there none.
Perversion of Justice succeeded.
"All truth goes through three stages.
First it is ridiculed.
Then it is violently opposed.
Finally, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer 1788-1860, German philosopher who based his ethics on compassion.
"It requires courage to utter truth; for the higher the Truth lifts her voice, the louder will error scream, until its inarticulate sound is forever silenced in oblivion"
Mary Baker Eddy, Christian Science.
Access to Health Records
Dated 2/10/2013 Updated 2/11/2014
Go to top
return to Front Page;
Return to OP file;
Return to latest updates;
return to Front Page; Return to OP file; Return to latest updates;