However, it is a bit early, and there is a cold blast of arctic air on the way to turn the entire UK into a deep freeze by Sunday night with snows arriving in northern regions by that time. When I was noting this earlier this morning commenting on the possibility of the central heating being out by central control, a male using the surveillance technology said "It's out" meaning that the central heating was not working properly. That's too bad since I was hoping that with central control it could be managed effectively to reduce the astronomical costs which have soared out of control recently.
Later today in the early afternoon I noted a radiator was hot again. The heat was back on. As well as revealing once again the surveillance activity used against me on a continuously basis that is directly related to what I am dong and saying, this demonstrated the connection between tenant management and the use of the surveillance technology. A male had clearly noted that the heat was "out" as described in the above paragraph. When he said this, I made a note to the effect that this reflected such a connection. This had been said in the context of my verbal note taking and comments with respect to the fact that heat was out.
2. A massive medical database of all patient information nationwide for each person in the UK is being created that will be accessible at all treatment points. There is a glimpse of this now being made available on a pilot project from GPs where a person can obtain his/her medical information at home online. While I believe that this will be wide open to abuses and has been so used in my situation, I think that this is a good thing in that each person will have the opportunity to look at his/her medical records. I just hope that full disclosure will be available. A central system like this with hidden information will lead to abuses while maintaining the illusion of an open character for people to check their records online at home. This should be continuously available.
I recommend that everyone take advantage of this opportunity to review and double check their own medical records. This is a fait accompli, and there is not much that can be done about it, but I think that people themselves can provide the discipline for the system to ensure that abuses are minimised and wrong information corrected. All organisations have every kind of personality type and character especially large ones. The NHS is the largest or one of the largest in the world. There is much room for error and serious problems to develop along with the ability to hide problems.
An information database will be useful in counter frauds such as the prescription scam that some medical doctors have accomplished. If people follow their records and see medication prescribed which they do not receive, there is a possibility that this might mean something other than a mistake. That is, if these records are provided by some means that cannot be altered. However, there is the problem of hiding what is being done or just omitting it such as I've experienced in different situations that puzzled me before this more recent fiasco and extreme brutality carried out against me by those in the NHS.
Back in the early 1990s I had an unfortunate experience with a GP which caused me some alarm, but there wasn't much I could do about it. I went to this GP after having not seen a doctor in a couple years for several reasons. While reviewing the information I had supplied about my history and lifestyle, he accused me of being an alcoholic and, in effect, lying about the information I supplied. He said my nose had the colour of a alcoholic and reinforced this by saying "We know these things." That was nonsense. This was in May. There had been sunny days, and I walk everywhere I go. I got a lot of sun outside after the winter months. I colour easily from the sun which caused my nose and face to pick up colour from this sun exposure. He had jumped to a conclusion that was wrong. I thought to myself that he could easily do a liver function and determine whether or not I was an alcoholic if that was important. Otherwise, it was superficial nonsense and hardly worthy of a medical doctor.
My main concern was skin cancer since I had malignant melanoma surgery as part of my history and wanted to keep track of my skin from time to time to ensure that nothing developed especially in areas which I could not see like the middle of my back. I had a specific question about something that was growing in the middle of my back and asked him to check it. Without saying a word to let me know what he was doing, he pulled off this growth with his fingers using his two thumbs to squeeze underneath and remove it. He then dabbed the bleeding with a tissue and covered it. He then told me what he did when I asked about it: he said "I removed it." I was astonished to say the least but did not say anything because is was too late. The damage was done.
If he had a question about this growth, he should have referred me to hospital for a dermatological examination and biopsy if necessary. When my initial malignant melanoma was diagnosed, the examining physician sent me to a dermatologist after I asked about a mole on my right shoulder. The dermatologist then took it off with a scalpel and sent it along for a pathological evaluation which came back positive a couple weeks later. He then referred me to an oncological surgeon who explained after his examination of the slides viewing the cross section of the tumour that the malignant melanoma had begun to grow downwards inside the body, but he could not tell how far since the dermatologist had cut it off parallel with the skin. The surgeon, who was a professor of surgery at a well known university, then explained that they taught the proper method for removing such suspected growths to ensure that a full evaluation could be made by cutting down and removing tissue under the growth along with the growth.
Here was a dermatologist who had got it wrong most likely unwittingly thinking he was doing the best by taking it off immediately. However, by cutting in off level with the skin rather than removing the tissue underneath it at the same time, he had cut it in half and subjected me to the risk that cancer cells could more easily enter the blood stream and lodge in other parts of the body such as the lungs or the brain which are favourite resting place for spreading malignant melanoma cells. Malignant melanomas are highly dangerous unless caught quickly because they can spread rapidly. It is most important to take proper care with precautions when a skin growth is suspected to be a malignant melanoma.
However, this GP had ignored any precautions whatsoever and pinched and pulled off this growth in the centre of my back with his fingers and that was that without any an consideration for cleanliness and antiseptic usage. You would think I was in a barber shop of old where the barber also was the local doctor of sorts. No biopsy was performed. He put my life at considerable risk I felt. I did not say anything to him, and there wasn't much I could do. Where could I go? If I went to casualty at a hospital and explained what had happened asking for either a referral to a dermatologist or their own excising of the tissue surrounding this growth, I thought I would have been ridiculed. I also felt that the GP would have denied what had happened making it more difficult for me. The result was that I just lived with it and got on with other things.
During this visit, this particular GP had also responded to a third item. I had a skin irritation which I brought to his attention. He examined it and prescribed some analgesic cream for a couple weeks usage explaining how to do this. I filled the prescription and followed his instructions precisely with the result that the skin irritation disappeared and has never returned. One out of three was not very good, I thought, so I just avoided going back to see this medical doctor for several years although I remained signed on with his practise as a patient and did not change. I thought jumping around between GPs would not be very helpful unless I knew in advance a high quality GP. These are usually filled and impossible to sign onto their list which happened when I did discover one. So, I just remained with this GP without visiting him again.
After several years in early 1996, I had a need to see him again. When I showed up for my consultation, he did not remember me or know who I was. When I explained what he had done, he looked at his records and noted that he did not have anything written down about the skin irritation which he had successfully treated. In fact, he had nothing on me except that I had come to his surgery on that day for an initial visit after signing on to his list. This gave me further cause for alarm about this GP and is the reason I welcome the opportunity to be able to see my records online at home so that I can keep track of the information being entered. If something is omitted, I can bring it to the attention of the GP's office for inclusion.
On this later visit after some years, he was not very helpful or nice. I was seeking a move to my current premises and needed some medical information verified for the forms I had to fill in for a Council flat. He refused to do this. There was nothing I could do. I filled in the forms myself with respect to my medical history and explained this when I turned in the forms at the local Council's housing office. I was told this was all right since I had done a thorough job with my medical history. The woman explained that they send people to their GPs since most cannot fill in the form as I had done which was quite acceptable.
This is another reason for everyone to keep tabs on their medical history in order to have the information available for themselves should a situation arise where a medical professional behaves in a manner that was beyond my comprehension when he refused to supply the required information for the form himself. I had to be responsible for my own medical history as it turned out, and I believe that such an information database can make this possible for each individual to keep track of his/her own medical history. This helps medical treatment all around and is something people should be doing. With a central source of information, this can then be done effectively for everyone perhaps even eliminating the forms that others require from time to time, but this is where the big problems arise: how far afield can this information be shared, who has access to it and by what means?
As it turned out in 1996 I moved, I was once again concerned about some skin growths. Since it had been several years since my skin had been checked, I went to my new GP to whom I had transferred when I moved to my current home in May 1996. This GP after examining the areas of my concern on my skin, referred me to the St Mary's Hospital Dermatology Out Patient Clinic where I have had since superb medical examinations, biopsies and the diagnosis of a malignancy in June 1998 (Bowen's disease). I would have never caught this, and it was to the credit of the medical professionals involved for catching this one. The whole point is to practice preventive medicine and most especially catch skin cancers before they become catastrophic problems. This is what I was trying to do. There is no excuse for not catching skin cancers in early stages.
My original concern was reinforced during my first visit to this hospital dermatology clinic in 1996. I cannot remember exactly whether or not I once again pointed out the area in the centre of my back, but I do know that I did not say anything about what had happened several years before when a GP had removed a growth using his fingers. This dermatologist on her own noted this area and stated that she wanted to remove it. I still said nothing and was happy that she had made this decision on her own from her own examination. This was an objective, independent evaluation. Perhaps something had continued to grow after the that initial "removal." Only when these dermatologists suspect something do they state they want to remove it. Usually, they are aware that a growth is most likely benign and will offer to remove it if that makes the patient feel better. She removed it in the clinic's surgical theatre and sent it off for biopsy which was negative thank goodness. I was reassured about something that had been bothering me without making an issue out of it.
I know what I can do and know my limitations. When I have a question about something like this, I will seek professional assistance. However, as described above, sometimes we cannot always rely upon medical professionals to do an acceptable job, and they can do harm sometimes unwittingly when trying to do their best or sometimes wittingly for whatever reasons of their own. That is why it is critically important, I believe, that everyone have complete access to their medical records so that they can know what is happening. Since my experience in the first half of the 1990s, I've always asked for a copy of my medical file. I am entitled to this by law in the UK. Somethings can be withheld, but I must be so informed. I welcome the ability to access these medical records when they become available online at home after the pilot project(s) work out the bugs, and this is rolled out nationwide. I just hope that all information is made available to each and every person.
People have to take care of themselves and cannot leave this to the medical professionals. While doctors will be able to access information from centralised sources for better patient treatment, patients, too, should have access to the same information in its entirety to know what is happening and what treatment is undertaken and why. This will provide, I believe, a discipline for the NHS so that problems which occur with respect to medical records can be caught when they happen and changed so that they are not allowed to persist and become accepted as fact or omission. I am not an alcoholic as this GP would have liked to create for whatever reason. I would have liked to have seen his notes on what he did with respect to the skin growth on my back that he removed with his fingers. And, I would have liked to have seen the fact that the skin irritation which he treated by prescription was not entered in my medical record. Was this guy just that bad, or was he deliberately devious for some reason unknown to me? How did he treat his other patients?
In a subsequent request for my complete medical record after I had changed GPs, I did receive his record in 1998. It has been a long time since I've read it, and it is buried away somewhere smothered by this surveillance technology abuse against me which started in August 1998. Given this current situation, I simply do not have the time to look for these records in my files. I am that busy contending with the abuse being carried out against me 24/7 by those using the surveillance technology. I have to solve all kinds of problems continuously and manage all this activity effectively. It takes up all my time which is subjected to further abuse to disrupt all my activity as much as possible.
There is one related point that I want to make. Council flat assessments are based upon a point system. In order to get on the Council's waiting list for housing, that assessment had to have more than 50 points. At the same time there must be a key medical reason for such housing. In my case it was the cancer surgery for the malignant melanoma which had removed all the lymph nodes under my right armpit. While the surgery was extensive, it was masterfully done. The surgeon had removed tissue along the most reasonable route that the cancer cells might have progressed since he had no idea exactly how far the tumour had grown downwards under the skin. He removed a chest muscle, but all this was cleverly hidden with plastic surgery which he had learned as part of his military service during the Korean War while repairing war wounds. Pathology examination of the lymph nodes were negative.
There was always the lymph oedema problem which might result from the absence of my lymph nodes. In fact, this did occur in the early years, but I learned to take care of that myself. My surgeon whom I visited regularly had given me a prescription for antibiotics to use in case I needed it. He renewed this annually. I was puzzled why I needed to carry this prescription with me until one time my right arm became streaked with red. I recognised this as an infection, i.e., similar to blood poisoning. I then went and filled the prescription since this occurred on a weekend and soaked in a hot bath every couple of hours until it went away.
I think the prescription was for three days of these antibiotics with one taken every four hours. The ability of my right side and arm to fight infection was reduced by the absence of the lymph nodes. I learned this by experience and instinctively knew what to do. He had given me the prescription which I could fill at at any time that became necessary on a weekend. When I explained to him what I had done and did not have to call him, he said that I had done exactly the right thing. This occurred a couple more times at two to three year intervals during the first decade after cancer surgery.
As it turned out, this was the key medical information which was essential for my obtaining a Council flat. Central heating was necessary to maintain warmth, and a bath where I could soak my right arm as needed was also critically important in controlling the lymph oedema which I could maintain almost as if it did not exist. It was also quite important to be free as much as possible from any source of bacterial infection. I was quite successful during the first couple years of my residency here to keep the lymph oedema under control. I used to take two baths a day one in the morning and evening to soak my arm. This kept the tissue soft and the lymph fluid flowing. The central heating which was working properly then kept the flat warm and comfortable.
The great tragedy of this situation and the use of the surveillance technology which began in August 1998 a little over two years from the time I moved in was the fact that the very reason I was given a Council flat was disregarded, and the surveillance technology abuse against me directly caused the lymph oedema. In addition, I was attacked while taking a bath. This started in earnest during July 1998 because those in the flat below could hear me filling the tub, knew I was present, where I was located and what I was doing. They were carrying out revenge and retaliation for having reported the domestic violence and child abuse in the flat below.
The mere use of the surveillance technology was the causative factor for the lymph oedema which went out of control in my right forearm and hand immediately with the start of the use of the radar imaging device since this caused an injury to the cells in my right arm and presumably elsewhere throughout my body although it showed up as lymph oedema in my right forearm and hand only. The rest was drained away normally in other areas of my body. The immune system responded accordingly to the surveillance technology usage, but the fluid could not be removed due to the lack of the lymph nodes in my right armpit.
I went to see my GP immediately about this, but I knew there was little that could be done. The source of the problem had to be addressed, and I knew that was the surveillance technology. I began addressing this problem by every legal means possible which included the abuse of this technology used as a weapon to carry out chronic sleep deprivation right from the start and other stalking and harassment activities.
As a further point from the destructive impact of using the radar imaging surveillance technology in the flat above, I developed cataracts in both eyes which were diagnosed in December 2000 at the Western Eye Hospital (part of the St Mary's Hospital Trust). I had already been under treatment at the Western Eye Hospital commencing in May 1998 due to diplopia (double vision). In conjunction with the hospital examinations and corrective measures taken along with optometric examinations which commenced in September 1998, I took as good care of my eyes as possible which resulted in the diplopia virtually disappearing by December 1998 when I was discharged as a outpatient from the Western Eye Hospital.
I maintained the careful examination process with an optometrist throughout this period because my eyes were deteriorating from the point of the September 1998 examination which reflected years of eyesight vision stability. My optometrist referred me back to the Western Eye Hospital twice in 2000 for May and December examinations where the cataracts were diagnosed in December of that year. This reflected the same cell damage by the radar imaging surveillance technology which had caused the lymph oedema only it took two years and four months to appear for a diagnosis. I knew that this potential for such a personal injury was highly likely and had noted in two separate letters to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner in the autumn of 1998 that I could go blind. This is what actually happened with the onset of cataracts in both eyes. Fortunately, they were surgically treated with lens implants in the summer of 2003 to save my eyesight.
Tenant management played a key role in all of this. Here was a situation where I was given a Council flat for medical reasons which were deliberately, knowingly and totally disregarded by tenant management, those associated with the flat below and many others. Instead, of being allowed to take care of myself in the manner which I knew was effective, I was subjected to intense abuse from all around 24/7 which destroyed this activity and aggravated the medical conditions for which I had been granted this Council flat. The Council itself was responsible for this because it had set up the tenant management organisations, and I thus communicated extensively to the Council because of these two tenant management organisations which were in a state of conflict that permitted this destruction of human activity and life to occur.
This situation has gotten worse and worse with the direct involvement of the NHS over all these years. Even the medical professionals themselves have knowingly and intentionally done a great deal of harm also participating in the direct use of the surveillance technology. There was a complete disregard for medical history and listening to me with respect to my explanations of the truth about what was happening and why. People in the NHS and elsewhere chose to believe what they wanted just like that GP back in the early 1990s who preferred to believe that I was an alcoholic because of my sun exposed nose. They have also carried out the equivalent of pulling or attempting to pull a growth off with their fingers ignoring sound medical procedures and cautions. I also suspect that it will be most difficult to get the NHS record of all that has happened here in the community by a number of NHS personnel just as the treatment for the skin irritation was not in the GPs notes in the early 1990s.
Information was not made available, and each person could operate as s/he wanted in their own separate cubicle. There are advantages to making this information available all around from a central database. It can stop misinformation from being disseminated. The problem is that it can also serve as a source of misinformation where false information gets into the database which is then treated as gospel. This is where the public enters and needs to have access to his/her own records to make certain that they are accurate and that abuse does not occur or mistakes are not made with serious consequences.
Be fully informed about your rights and responsibilities and read this article below in full at its URL as well as anything else available on this subject.
BBC News
Home access to NHS records plan
 People will be able to access their own health records from home |
Patients are set to be able to look at their medical records on their home computer, it has been announced.
The plan was set out by Connecting For Health, which is overseeing the introduction of the new NHS IT system - The Spine - which will cover England.
The organisation also revealed 14,500 patients in Bolton will be the first to have computerised NHS records set up.
People will receive letters telling them data including medications will be uploaded unless they object.
 |  The electronic summary care records have the potential to improve patient safety and the quality of care but patients will need to be made aware of their rights  Dr Richard Vautrey, British Medical Association |
They will have eight weeks to view their records and raise any concerns they have.
Details can be held back, or they can choose to have their entire record remain private.
Patients will also be able to reverse restrictions on what details are accessible on their records if, for instance, they are in a situation where NHS staff need to see all their details.
Staff will have smartcards and passwords, designed to restrict access to full data to those clinicians who need it, while administrative staff would only be able to see basic patient information.