"Russia, the Russian authorities, may be placing him into a situation of a slow death and seeking to hide what is happening to him... clearly the Russian authorities are violating his rights. We have to do more... they are now detaining him, and imposing prison conditions, that amount to torture." - Ms Agnes Callamard, in 2021, on treatment of Mr Navalny, by Russia, not dissimilar to my treatment. Mr Navalny died of a heart attack, two years later.
If the lesson of Mr Navalny is that, in Russia, a person might be imprisoned and die an early death, unnecessarily and probably deliberately caused by his mistreatment in detention, designed to achieve precisely such an end, the lesson of my case must be that, in the United Kingdom, today, a private individual, quietly and inoffensively going about his life, never knows might cause his detention and provoke repeated attempts by the state to kill him.
Poorly Concealed Attempts on a Person's Life
Summary
The World Health Organisation (WHO) states: " High blood pressure is one of the world's leading risk factors for death and disability. leading to an estimated 10.8 million avoidable deaths every year, and a burden of 235 million years of life lost or lived with a disability (disability-adjusted life years, DALYs) annually. High blood pressure causes more deaths than other leading risk factors, including tobacco use and high blood sugar. " - Second paragraph of the Executive Summary of the WHO's Report, to which that link points.
I am hypertensive. On 29 August, 2024, my prescription for medication to manage my blood pressure was cancelled.
I have been detained in mental hospitals. They do not treat physical problems: those are handled by primary care hospitals. Psychiatrists can deal with problems initially but a person should be referred to a general practitioner or hospital as quickly as possible.
This page reports a clear pattern of incomprehensible and extremely dangerous medical malpractice,
over a period of four years.
(i) The only plausible conclusion is that, at least since 2020, several NHS trusts have been involved in
repeated attempts to murder a patient (me). Another attempt is in progress right now.
Why it Is attempted Murder, not Negligence
1. The Crown Prosecution Service defines murder as follows: :
"Subject to three exceptions (which constitute partial defences to murder, and result in a conviction for
manslaughter) the crime of murder is committed, where a person:
2. The exceptions which reduce murder to manslaughter are:
"(i) Killing with the intent for murder but where a partial defence applies, namely loss of control, diminished
responsibility or killing pursuant to a suicide pact.
(ii) Conduct that was grossly negligent given the risk of death, and did kill ("gross negligence manslaughter");
and
(iii) Conduct taking the form of an unlawful act involving a danger of some harm that resulted in death
("unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter")."
3. In the section, below, entitled: Why the Decisions must Be malicious", I explain why these are unlikely to be mistakes.
4. Sometimes, mistakes are made and, subsequently, cover-ups are attempted. What usually happens then is:
(i) a mistake is made,
(ii) the mistake is discovered and a cover-up or attempt at one ensues.
(a) Meanwhile, attempts are made to reverse the mistake or there is movement in the direction opposite to that
which caused the mistake. A person would at least start to receive correct medical care.
5. Repeatedly, in my case, however:
(i) inexplicably and dangerously deficient decisions are taken,
(ii) efforts are immediately initiated to compound the deficiencies and increase the danger to me and
(iii) no meaningful compensating actions are taken.
6. The sort of behaviour seen in my case suggests deliberate attempts to kill a person.
7. This was done to a person known to raise complaints with authorities. The response of the authorities, when such reports have been made to them, suggests it was known they could be depended on to ignore these blatant attempts at murder.
8. On 06 April, 2021, Ms Callamard referred to similar treatment of Mr Alexei Navalny. She said:
"Russia, the Russian authorities, may be placing him into a situation of a slow death and seeking to hide
what is happening to him... clearly the Russian authorities are violating his rights. We have to do more...
they are now detaining him, and imposing prison conditions, that amount to torture."
(i) Mr Navalny died of a heart attack, in 2023.
9. More than one-hundred-and-eighty Russian doctors signed a letter stating that Mr Navalny's detention and his being denied medication to control hypertension caused his death (that link points to an English translation, this is the Russian ).
10. In 2020, I developed
hypertension (high blood pressure). In 2020, and again in 2021, I experienced numbness in my arms.
I was detained in a different hospital on each occasion, and yet very much the same thing happened:
(i) there were strange delays sending me to a primary care hospital: the first time, almost a whole day, the
second time, five months,
(ii) I was not seen by doctors-on-call when I asked to see them,
(iii) doctors refused to answer questions about my condition and about the decisions they made,
(iv) the responses to those symptoms were likely only to increase my anxiety and the chances I would suffer an
attack, such as a stroke, that might cause my death or occasion grave and irreparable damage.
(v) In short: on each occasion, a hypertensive who was experiencing numbness in his arms, was simultaneously
denied the correct medical care while being harassed and treated in such a way as to increase his anxiety and,
consequently, further raise his blood pressure.
11. In 2021, I experienced numbness of the arms again. I was forced to call for an ambulance after being denied
adequate medical attention for a month. The Hospital manager discovered I had made that call. He came to the
ward and had the ambulance cancelled.
(i) For several months, no one, including the manager, could explain how he discovered I had made that call.
(ii) Eventually, an implausible explanation was offered which no one has been able to defend, when I have questioned
it.
(iii) The evidence suggests that the telephone call to the ambulance services was intercepted, probably by a
third party (not the hospital) and that third party informed the manager of the call and instructed him to
have the ambulance cancelled.
12. After the incidents of 2020 and 2021, it was apparent that there was an attempt to provoke an attack
(e.g.: stroke) that would bring about my death or cause me serious and irreparable damage. Check-ups and
observations of my blood pressure were being carried out only to create an administrative record to give the
appearance that I had been properly cared for.
(i) In 2020, I requested regular observation of my blood pressure. In 2022, I refused to have such observations
and even to have medical check-ups until:
(a) a valid diagnosis was produced and
(b) The questions I had put to the Hospital, regarding my treatment when I reported those symptoms, were answered.
On 29 October, 2024, Ramipril: the medicine
I took to control blood pressure, was cancelled. It was said that, since I refused to agree to check-ups,
side-effects of Ramipril might not be noticed. That is unreasonable:
(i) The chances of dangerous side effects are negligible, especially after having taken it for four years without
any such side effects.
(ii) The risks from not taking Ramipril are much larger than those from not taking it, and they include a
much greater chance of developing the side effects against which they claim to be protecting me (kidney disease).
Symptoms, 2020, and Response thereto
1. In mid-July, 2020, my bi-annual physical check-up revealed my blood pressure to be elevated. Thereafter, it had to be monitored regularly.
2. At about 19:00, on the evening of 07 October, I experienced numbness in my right arm. At about 19:45,
I reported it to the Hospital.
(i) There is always a doctor-on call to see patients in an emergency, but I was not seen by a doctor until
11:00 the next morning, when a junior doctor (trainee psychiatrist) saw me.
3. On the night of 07 October, I wrote a letter to the Doctor-on-Call on that night. The Hospital refused to
give me the Doctor's name.
(i) I told the Junior Doctor who saw me on 08 October that I had written a letter to the Doctor-on-Call the
previous night and I needed their name.
(ii) She said she did not know the Doctor's name.
(a) As we spoke, she mentioned she had read that doctor's notes. I pointed out that, in that case, she must
know the Doctor's name. She said she had forgotten the name.
(iii) I told her she could easily find the name by consulting those notes again.
(a) She said I would not be allowed to communicate with the Doctor-on-Call and should not expect a response
to any letter I might write: all communication would be verbal and carried out through my medical team, in
other words: by Chinese whispers.
4.
These are the rules (GMP) by the GMC that practitioners were supposed to observe at that time.
:
(i) The Doctor-on-Call should have spoken to me; they diagnosed a patient without seeing or even speaking to
him (No.34 of GMP).
(ii) A patient should know the name of the doctor who treats him and should have his questions answered by
that doctor (No.64 of GMP).
(a) The name of the doctor who considered my case was deliberately concealed from me and they did not answer
my questions (No.49 c of GMP).
(b) They insisted communication would be verbal and through third parties (No.32 of GMP).
(iii) This was all unnecessary, it was against the rules of medical practice and no reason could be given for
doing it.
(iv) Lying that they did not know the name of the practitioner and, when caught in that lie, refusing to
provide the name or permit communication with that practitioner (No.65 of GMP)
5. I addressed the letter to "Dr XY", gave a copy to members of staff and asked them to give it to the Doctor-on-Call. I was told the letter was given to my medical (psychiatric) team but not to the Doctor-on-Call. I received no response to that letter.
6. At 14:30, on 08 October, I was finally sent to Accident and emergency at the local hospital. I arrived at
15:00.
(i) At about 17:00, my blood pressure was measured at 160/120. Blood samples were taken.
(ii) About an hour later, my blood pressure was measured again: it was still 160/120.
7. At about 20:00, I was finally seen. I was told no scan would be carried out and there was no reason to be
concerned.
(i) The assessment consisted entirely of a man who refused to give his name, only providing a first name and
the abbreviation "ACP":
(a) listening to my chest using a stethoscope and
(b) asking me to cough,
(c) touching, my arm and asking me if I could feel anything, and then placing his fingers at several points
along my arm and striking them with a small hammer.
(ii) The results of those tests were satisfactory.
8. I asked to be informed of the results of the blood tests, and to be given a printout of those results.
the man who examined me (ACP) refused to do either.
(i) When I returned to the Hospital where I was detained, I made several requests to be shown and informed of
the results of the blood tests. This was not done.
9. At 09:00, on Friday, 09 October, 2020. I asked if a doctor could bring me material on the different
types of Hypertension medication available. I said I wished to be prescribed such medication; it had not been
offered.
(i) The same junior doctor who had seen me on 08 October told me I would see the GP on Tuesday, 13 October
(four days later).
10. On the morning of Saturday, 10 October, concerned for my health, and fearful I might suffer a serious attack
before my appointment with a practitioner on 13 October, I explained to members of staff that I thought it was
urgent I be prescribed medication to control Hypertension. I asked that I be seen by a doctor who could write
such a prescription.
(i) At 09:00, my Blood Pressure was measured and a reading of 196/120 was obtained. But my requests to see a
doctor were denied: I was told I would not see a doctor, regarding prescription of Hypertension medication,
until Tuesday because I was fine and my Blood Pressure was normal.
11. I was concerned: I was clearly at risk of imminent, serious and irreversible physical damage, perhaps even
death. I slammed the door shut in frustration as I left the office, and I returned to my room.
(i) Members of staff followed me to my room. They told me that my behaviour was unacceptable and I should calm
down.
(a) I repeatedly told them that what they were doing was unnecessary and dangerous: that I could die at any
moment. They said I would not, and then they went away.
12. My Blood Pressure was not measured again, until 18:30, a reading of 140/90 was obtained (eight-and-a-half hours after the reading of 196/120).
13. At 11:00, on Sunday, 11 October, 2020, my Blood Pressure was measured and a reading of 165/98 was obtained.
(i) I was not seen by a doctor on 11 October and no further Blood Pressure readings were taken.
Blood Pressure Categories
| Category | Systolic (mm Hg) | Diastolic (mm Hg) |
|---|---|---|
| Normal | Less than 120 | and Less than 80 |
| Elevated | 120-129 | and Less than 80 |
| Hypertension Stage 1 | 130-139 | or 80-89 |
| Hypertension Stage 2 | 140 or higher | or 90 or higher |
| Hypertensive Crisis | Higher than 180 | and/or Higher than 120 |
14. It is noteworthy that my Blood Pressure was recorded at 196/120 when I thought I would be seen by a practitioner and had not been provoked and ill-treated by staff. It is more likely than not that, during the eight_and-a-half hours between that reading and the next time my blood pressure was checked, my blood pressure remained considerably above that reading of 196/120 for some time.
15. On Monday, 12 October, 2020, I was seen by the same Junior Doctor. She said I was fine. She refused to arrange an earlier consultation with the GP: I should wait until the next day, she said. In any case, if I were not detained in a mental hospital, I should have to wait weeks to see a GP, so I shouldn’t complain.
16. I demanded a written response to my letter to Dr XY. The Junior Doctor said that I would receive no such response because that would be "not professional".
17. I told the Junior Doctor and, later, more senior doctors that I required the name of Dr XY, in order to file a complaint with the GMC: a complaint cannot be filed with the GMC without the name of the practitioner against whom the complaint is filed. They refused to provide the name.
18. On Tuesday, 13 October, 2020, I had a consultation with the GP. I was prescribed Ramipril to control Hypertension.
19. After the weekend of 10 to 12 October, the psychiatrist in charge of my care suspended my leave for a certain period of time (I do not remember how long) because I slammed the door as I left the Dispensary on Saturday Morning (see No.11, above). He said I had been unreasonable.
2021 Symptoms and second Attempt at Murder
1. In 2021, I was moved to a different secure mental hospital. At that Hospital:
(i) The response to symptoms similar to those I had experienced the previous year at the previous hospital
was very similar.
(ii) The main difference was that, this time, the mistreatment and refusal to follow the rules were more flagrant.
It was as though it was thought an opportunity had been missed the previous year and they were determined
to succeed this time.
2. In 2021, my Blood Pressure was consistently high. On Thursday, 28 October, 2021, the amount of Ramipril I take daily was increased from 2.5 mg to 5.0 mg.
3. At about 17:00 on Monday, 01 November, 2021, my right arm became numb. At about 20:00, I informed the Duty
Nurse that my right arm had been numb for about three hours, the numbness had then spread to my left arm
and my hands were cold.
(i) No action was taken: I was not examined and I was not told what might be causing those symptoms.
4. At 18:00 on Tuesday, 02 November, my arms were still numb. I asked to see a doctor.
(i) I was told the Doctor thought there was no need for concern; s/he did not come to see me.
(ii) 24 hours after I reported those symptoms, I had not been examined.
(a) During that time, I met one of the nurses on the Ward, in the corridor. She asked me if my Blood Sugar
levels had been tested, after I reported those symptoms. I told her no test had been carried out.
(b) She was very concerned but she was also plainly very nervous and unwilling to become involved.
5. Later, on 02 november, the Duty Nurse carried out the first examination of me:
(i) He asked me to breathe normally, while a student nurse counted the number of breaths I took, which she
(the Student) determined by observing the rising and falling of my chest).
(ii) After a while, the Duty Nurse asked the Student how many inhalations I had taken. Then he said:
"That was thirty seconds, so multiply that by two."
(iii) That and the usual taking of my Blood Pressure, which is carried out every evening, was the extent of
the medical examinations carried out on me, since reporting numbness in my arms, the previous day at 20:00.
That evening (02 November) after the doctor on call refused to see me: s/he told the Nurse there was no cause
for concern. I asked for the name of the Doctor, the Hospital refused to divulge it.
(i) This is a breach of the rules: a patient must know who is responsible for his care and is treating him
(see No.64 of
Good Medical Practice
(GMP)),
(i) What reason could there be to withhold from a patient, who wishes to know it, the name of the practitioner
who has made decisions regarding his health?
6. That evening, I wrote a letter to the Doctor, putting to him/her questions regarding my symptoms,
his/her opinion on those symptoms and the decisions s/he had taken.
(i) I gave the letter to the Hospital, on the morning of 03 November, and asked that it be delivered
to the Doctor. I received no response.
(a) Doctors must answer questions put to them by patients (No.31 of GMP).
7. At 16:00, on Wednesday, 03 November, a junior doctor at the Hospital (trainee psychiatrist), came to see me on the Ward. This was the first time I was seen by a doctor, two days after I first reported numbness in my arms. During that time, the symptoms had not abated.
8. The Junior Doctor asked me to describe my symptoms; I explained my arms were numb.
(i) He asked me to close my eyes so he could see if I had lost my sense of feel. I explained
I had not (for example: when I held a warm cup of tea, it seemed to feel much hotter than it normally would).
(ii) He did not carry out that test or any other test, but he offered the following diagnosis:
(a) These were probably merely the natural effects of aging and the change in tissue occasioned by that
process and
(b) The coldness in my hands was probably only due to the changing of the seasons: it is colder in Autumn,
and so we feel colder.
9. The Junior Doctor's diagnosis was idiotic. I pointed out to him that:
(i) It cannot be reasonable to suggest to a man of my age that his arms are numb because tissue has naturally
degraded due to aging.
(ii) I am not so young as to be unaware of the effects of the change from Summer to Autumn, that I would be
alarmed at it and report it as a medical concern.
(a) Furthermore, I was always indoors in a heated hospital.
10. The Junior Doctor did not deny the observations I made, regarding his diagnosis, but he offered no further
explanation or alternative diagnosis. He simply said he had given me his medical opinion.
(i) He said there was no cause for concern: he would examine me again on Friday and, if necessary, would
book an appointment with the General Practitioner who would then see me on the following Wednesday. This meant:
(a) After reporting those symptoms, I had not been seen by a doctor or examined for two days.
(b) On the third day, that curious examination was carried out and that preposterous diagnosis tendered.
(c) I was then next to be seen two days later (five days after I first reported those symptoms).
(d) At that point, if the Junior Doctor said he thought it necessary, an appointment would be made with the
General Practitioner.
(e) And so, a hypertensive who reported numbness in his extremities would be seen by the General Practitioner
(not at a hospital where he might receive scans), nine days after he first reported those symptoms. During
which time those symptoms persisted.
11. I explained to the Junior Doctor that I had been asleep and had been woken when he arrived: the symptoms
might get worse.
(i) Indeed, half-an-hour later, the symptoms were precisely as they have been over the last couple of days.
(ii) That evening, I put some questions to him, regarding his examination of me and his opinions . I asked
him for a written response.
12. The Junior Doctor did not come to see me that Friday, as he had said he would. No explanation was given
and I was not seen by anyone until the General Practitioner came to see me on 11 November, ten (10) days after
I had first reported those symptoms.
(i) By that time, the symptoms were greatly relieved (they started to wane about two days before), not as a
result of any medical intervention: I had not even been examined properly.
(ii) The GP instructed that blood samples be taken. She said that, had she been in charge of my care earlier,
she would have ordered MRI or CT scans. In other words, she would have had me sent to a primary care
hospital.
(a) But she did not order any such scans.
13. On 13 November, I experienced a marked deterioration in my symptoms: my arms felt extremely numb.
(i) I was examined by the nurse who found red blotches on my left arm. I was concerned and asked that I be
seen by a doctor.
(i) The Doctor-on-Call was informed. S/he did not examine me or even speak to me over the telephone: s/he
spoke to a member of staff who later refused to give me the doctor’s name.
(ii) I was told the Doctor had said the cause of the symptoms must be an allergic reaction (to something that
was not specified) or that perhaps it was simply the body's response to exercise.
(a) In arriving at that conclusion, the doctor did not examine me or even speak to me to discover if I had
any allergies, had done or taken anything unusual recently or how much exercise I had been taking.
(b) I have no allergies, had not done or come into contact with anything unusual and I had not taken any
exercise for several weeks.
(iii) Nothing was prescribed or advised.
14. I wrote to the Doctor-on-Call on 13 November, asking him/her, among other things:
(i) to name an allergy that might cause numbness and
(ii) how those symptoms (numbness and discolouration of the skin) might have been caused by exercise, especially
since I had not taken any exercise in six weeks (I had injured my Achilles ligament).
(iii) The Doctor did not answer the questions I put to him/her.
15. On 17 November, The Junior Doctor came to see me. It was the third time I had been seen by a practitioner,
since I reported those symptoms, the other two times being his visit, on 03 November, and the GP, on 11 November.
(i) The Junior Doctor:
(a) put a stethoscope to my chest and listened,
(b) put a stethoscope to my back and listened,
(c) carried out a cursory visual examination of my hands,
(d) carried out a cursory visual examination of my feet,
(e) carried out a cursory visual examination of my eyes,
(f) carried out a cursory visual examination of my tongue,
(g) Without my having asked, pointedly announced that it was merely the biannual physical examination that is
carried out on every patient. His words were:
"That was just the examination we carry out on everyone twice every year."
15. The implication of the Junior Doctor's words was clear: he wanted me to understand I was not receiving
treatment or examination for the symptoms I had been experiencing and reporting for two weeks. It was done
provocatively.
(i) It appears the Junior Doctor saw me, on 17 November, in order to create an administrative record suggesting
I was being cared for. He took advantage of that visit to further try to cause me anxiety by lying that it
was a routine check-up carried out on everyone.
(ii) From the beginning, the handling of my case appears to have been intended to vex me. Such treatment of
a hypertensive, experiencing numbness in his arms, might well occasion his death.
16. I wrote to the Junior Doctor, asking him to answer the questions I had put to him after his examination
of me on 03 November and also:
(i) to confirm that the examinations he had carried out on 17 November had been part of the biannual medical
checks,
(ii) why, if that were the case, I had had three such checks in the past eleven months and
(iii) why that last check had not been as thorough as those checks normally are (for example: there had been
no ECG test).
17. The Junior Doctor did not answer the questions I put to him in both letters. He informed me that the
psychiatrist in charge of my care had instructed him not to answer them.
(i) On several occasions, I reminded the Junior Doctor that his licence to practice medicine was issued by
the GMC and not by the Psychiatrist, and the GMC required him to answer questions patients put to him.
(ii) I advised him to answer the questions I had put to him and, if he faced pressure not to do so, to report
that to the GMC, the Trust, the Department of Health and other authorities. He refused to answer the questions.
18. A Care Programme Approach (CPA) Meeting is meant to assess a patient's needs and ensure he has support for those needs. At my CPA, I tried to have the psychiatrist answer the questions I had put to the Junior Doctor. He refused to do so. He said the Trust was sending people to answer those questions on 05 January, 2022, so he would not answer them.
19. The meeting with the Trust was postponed until 19 January, 2022. The NHS Trust's Head of Nursing Rehabilitation
Specialist Services Division and its Head of Governance came to see me.
(i) They did not answer the questions I had put to the Junior Doctor and the other Practitioners: they said
they had come to discover what I needed to know and what my complaints were.
(a) This made no sense: the letters I had sent to the Junior Doctor, to other practitioners and to the Trust
could not have been more clear.
20. The Trust eventually carried out not an enquiry but a naked cover-up. None of the questions I asked were answered and it refused to name the practitioners who were supposed to have made decisions regarding my care.
21. On 19 November, three weeks after I first reported those symptoms and with no sign that I would receive
the medical care I required, I was forced to telephone for an ambulance.
(i) I used my mobile phone. I told the dispatcher that I am a patient in a mental hospital. I described my
symptoms and explained I had had them nearly three weeks.
22. The Dispatcher asked to speak to a member of staff. I gave the telephone to the duty nurse.
(i) The Nurse took the telephone into the Office and spoke to the Dispatcher. I waited outside.
(ii) Shortly afterwards, the manager rushed onto the Ward and went into the office. He had been working on
another ward.
(iii) After a few minutes, the Nurse came out of the Office and returned my telephone to me. The Call had been
terminated. She told me it had been agreed that no ambulance would be sent: the Doctor-on-Call would be
consulted instead.
(iv) The Ward Manager telephoned the Doctor-on-Call. The Doctor did not speak to me. I was told that s/he
said s/he would not come to see me: s/he did not consider it necessary.
(v) I asked for the Doctor's name. The Manager refused to divulge it.
(vi) I sent a letter to the Doctor. I received no response.
23. In 2023, the Parliamentary Health and Service Ombudsman (PHSO) refused to investigate the matter. He said he was
satisfied with everything he found when he looked into the matter.
(i) What he found included that the names of practitioners who are supposed to have made decisions regarding
my care, the practitioners whose identities were concealed from me by the Hospital and Trust, practitioners
who made diagnoses without examining me and refused to answer questions I put to them, could not be found.
(ii) That must mean they did not make records of their treatment of me or my case: such records must be made
and must be signed, which would have allowed them to be identified
(see No.21 of Good Medical Practice)
.
(iii) In fact, it isn't possible to say that any practitioner did consider my case on those occasions:
(a) I did not speak to a practitioner: examination was carried out by Chinese whisper. The nurses say they
spoke to a practitioner who gave them a response which they then conveyed to me. Who's to say that's true?
(b) My responses to those opinions were ignored.
(iii) The PHSO is satisfied with such practices.
24. I filed a request with the Ambulance Service for a recording of the telephone call I made to it. It showed:
(i) The Manager came onto the Ward expressly to deal with that issue (which he did by having the ambulance
cancelled): he knew I had placed such a call.
(a) But he should not have known that I had placed that Call: none of the people who should have known I had
made that Call (the Dispatcher, the Nurse and I) informed him of it.
(ii) When the Dispatcher told the Nurse that I had telephoned for an ambulance, she tried to give the impression
that I am mentally disordered, and that was why I had made that Call.
(a) When the Dispatcher told her I had telephoned for an ambulance, the Nurse sighed and then said:
"Do you know what sort of ward this is?"
(b) The Call ends with the Nurse telling the dispatcher not to send an ambulance:
"Cancel it, please. We don't need an ambulance."
And the dispatcher saying:
"It was a bit of a sticky situation for me as well. I was like: what am I doing?".
whereupon they both laugh.
(iii) When I asked the Nurse about those statements she denied that that had been her intention. She said she
had been asked where she was and had merely answered that question.
That is not true. She said she had not implied I had made that Call because I mentally disordered because:
"that would be unfair."
25. On 24 January, 2022, I wrote to the Hospital Manager (not the manager on duty on the night of the call
to the ambulance services). I asked her how the Manager that night had discovered I had made that Call:
(i) It was a simple question but she refused to answer it and instead sent the letter to the Trust.
(ii) There was a lot of stalling:
(a) The Trust's Head of Nursing at first insisted he would answer those questions when he finished working on
all the other questions in his investigation, which he said would be at some point in the middle of March.
(b) I explained that the questions regarding how the Manager had discovered I had made that Call must be
answered immediately: I could not understand how he had learned of the Call and, in the absence of a better
explanation, I had to consider that a third party was eavesdropping on my communications and had informed
the Manager of that Call.
(iii) After some weeks of refusing to answer those questions immediately, which he could easily have done:
(a) he said the Manager could not remember how he had learned of the Call.
(b) He said a support worker who had been in the office when the Nurse spoke to the Ambulance Service might
have informed the Manager of the Call. That support worker had been on leave,
(c) The recording from the ambulance services is very clear, everything happening in the Offica can be heard.
The support worker did not call the Manager. This has not been disputed.
(d) the Head of Nursing was going on leave for a week. He would ask the support worker, after he returned from
leave, on 21 February, and would provide me with written answers to the questions regarding how the Manager
discovered I had made that Call. He did not do so.
26. On 24 February, the Head of Nursing telephoned me at about 15:30. He asked if I was willing to meet him
so he could answer the questions regarding how the Manager discovered I had telephoned the ambulance services.
(i) I told him that I was prepared to do so, on condition that he agreed to let me make an audio recording
of the Meeting.
(ii) He refused to do so: he said he was concerned at how I might use such a recording. He said that I would
over-analyse it and pay attention to every intonation.
(iii) I explained there was no reason for him to think so and that, if I attempted unreasonable interpretations
of the recording, that would be apparent, unless, of course, my view of the recording was unreasonable only
to him and reasonable to everyone else.
(a) He would simply have to produce the Recording and it would immediately be apparent that I was being
unreasonable, if indeed I were.
(b) An audio recording must therefore be preferable to written notes or a conversation committed to memory:
it is more objective.
(iii) He refused to have the meeting recorded and I refused to have the meeting, if he would not agree to an
audio recording of it.
(iv) He said he was telephoning me from the Hospital's car park; he had come here on other business.
(v) I ignored the fact that, whether or not he had other business to attend to at the Hospital, we had an
agreement that he should have provided me with a written response, three days before. I suggested that, since
he was likely to return to his office at about 17:00, he should not send me the response that day (I did not
want to ask him to work after 17:00). But I asked him to ensure that I received answers to those questions
the next day. He agreed.
(vi) I did not receive any sort of attempt at answers to those questions until 02 March, more than five weeks
after I first posed the questions and six days after that Telephone Call he made from the Hospital car park.
(vii) He said he had been unable to find anyone who remembered informing the Manager that I had made that Call.
27. On 16 March, 2022, four months after I reported those symptoms, I was finally seen at a primary care hospital, by a neurologist. An appointment had been made for me by the Trust in November, 2021.
28. I wrote to the primary care hospital's Board of directors, on 25 January, soon after I learned of the appointment.
I informed it of my case and asked why I was not seen urgently. I was informed that, when the appointment
was made, the Hospital detaining me said my case was not urgent.
(i) Given the rest of the evidence, the only reason not to have informed me of the appointment until January
was to create anxiety and increase: they did everything they could to make me think nothing was being done.
(ii) It is also likely that the appointment was made to create an administrative record supporting the view
that they had done all they could for me.
(a) Why would an appointment for a hypertensive experiencing numbness of the extremities not be an emergency?
They ensured I went as long as possible without the correct medical attention. This would have increased the
chances of my death.
(b) I am alive today, in spite of the actions of the Hospital.
29. I assume, when an appointment is made for a scan, some details are given. The General Hospital must have
realised my case was an emergency, even if they were told it was not. Certainly, they should not have waited
four months to see a hypertensive who was experiencing numbness of the arms.
(i) In any case, when I described the case to the Board, it must have understood that it was urgent. But my
Appointment was not brought forward.
30. I informed the Board, and provided it with proof of the fact that:
(i) I had falsely been declared to be mentally disordered and dangerous,
(ii) I was detained on those grounds, though I had already demonstrated I could safely be in the community,
and
(iii) the Secretary of State for Justice was unable to justify the restrictions imposed on me.
31. HospitalS have safeguarding duties to their patients; they should have acted on the reports I made to them. The Board ignored my reports.
32. The Neurologist carried out some tests: reactions, sense of feel, etc.
(i) She said there was no explanation for the symptoms I had experienced and advised me, should I experience
the same symptoms, in future, to ignore them.
(a) This Neurologist advised a hypertensive to ignore numbness of the arm, should it occur, in future.
33. The Neurologist seemed unconcerned. She asked me if I required a scan, if I did not, she would not order one. I requested a scan and an MRI scan was ordered.
34. The Neurologist said my symptoms could not have been occasioned by a small stroke or by an aneurysm. She said the symptoms did not correspond to a stroke or aneurysm: I would have experienced numbness even in the lower extremities. This is not true.
35. I asked the Neurologist how long it would take before evidence of a small stroke or aneurysm disappeared or became difficult to discern. She was evasive and gave no answer.
36. I reported my visit to the General Hospital to the Board that runs that Trust. I asked it if it was satisfied with the treatment and diagnosis.
37. Towards the end of April, I received a letter from the General Hospital. It stated the Neurologist
had been on leave, so the letter could not be sent sooner: it required her signature.
(i) The letter contained a diagnosis - I had not previously been given one. I had merely been told that there
was no explanation for the symptoms, that I should not be concerned and should ignore the symptoms, in future,
should they return.
(ii) The diagnosis was
Functional Symptoms.
.
It is a vague condition; medically unexplained symptoms caused by severe stress.
(iii) The Neurologist made this diagnosis of a hypertensive who had reported such symptoms, four months previously.
She did so without a scan.
(iv) Plainly, people were determined not to admit the real danger I faced. Four Hospitals behaved questionably
and dangerously, regarding my treatment when I reported those symptoms:
(a) The First Hospital (mental hospital), where I was not sent to a general hospital for a day, and was afterwards
treated as described, section entitled: Symptoms, 2020, and Response thereto
above.
(b) The Second Hospital (primary care hospital), where I was sent in 2020. Where they refused to take scans
or to inform me of the results of the blood tests they carried out. The Chief Executive of that NHS Trust was
unable to answer questions I put to him regarding their handling of my case.
(c) The Third Hospital (mental hospital), where I am now, where these events took place and where, as you shall
see, later, they even withdrew my prescription so that I, a hypertensive, was without medication to control
his high blood pressure.
(d) The Fourth Hospital (primary care hospital), where the Neurologist gave me advice which, if followed, might
kill me (in future, to ignore such symptoms), where she made a diagnosis that should not have been made, being
in possession of the facts she had, where, as you shall see, she refused even to attempt to treat the condition
she diagnosed, where she refused to discharge her duty of care to a patient and where the board refused to act,
when informed of these facts.
38. On 05 May, I wrote to the Board and to the Neurologist:
(i) questioning the diagnosis,
(ii) observing that, if the diagnosis were correct, they had only done half the job: they knew what must be
causing the stress (false diagnoses, unjustified and unnecessary detention, etc.), they must try to effect a cure
and
(iii) offering suggestions on how to proceed.
39. The response of the Board was: "Having carefully considered the points that you have raised in your email of 19 May, 2022, unfortunately, it is felt that we cannot offer any further comments that will achieve resolution at a local level."
40. The Neurologist did not respond to the letter I sent her.
Discontinuation of Medication
41. After the response to my symptoms, over the years, and the Trust's refusal to answer questions I put to it,
I considered all the evidence described here in condensed form. I had to accept that:
(i) at least since 2020, there have been deliberate attempts to murder me, those attempts continue today and
(ii) an administrative record, in the form of observations of my blood pressure and biannual check-ups is being
created, falsely to give the impression that I am receiving adequate medical care.
42. I informed the Chief Executive of the Trust that I required a valid diagnosis of the mental disorder with which I have been diagnosed (delusional disorder). She was unable to produce one.
43. I informed the hospital that I would no longer agree to medical check-ups or monitoring of my blood pressure until a valid diagnosis was produced and the questions I put to practitioners, regarding my care after I reported those symptoms, are answered.
44. Physical health services are provided to the Hospital by a general practice. The General Practitioner told
me that, if I did not agree to a check-up, she would discontinue my medication to control blood pressure.
She said she would have to do so to prevent the risk of undesirable side effects.
(i) I discussed the matter with her. She admitted that the risk of such side-effects is extremely slight. I
pointed out that the risk to a hypertensive of death or grave and irreparable damage, should he stop taking
medication to manage hypertension, was even greater.
(a) She did not deny this but she said she would discontinue the medication anyway, if I did not agree to
check-ups.
45. On 29 August, 2024, the General Practitioner withdrew my prescription for Ramipril. She exposed a person to a significant risk of death or grave and irreparable damage, purportedly in order to avoid a negligible risk of undesirable side-effects.
46. On that same day (29 August), I sent letters to the Chief Executive and other members of the management
of the General Practice Firm and to the General Practitioner who had cancelled my prescription. The letters
are almost identical, you may view a copy here.
(i) To the management,
I reported that their Practitioner
had cancelled a hypertensive's prescription for medicine to manage hypertension.
(ii) To all, I explained why I refused to agree to check-ups. I said I would agree to check-ups, if a valid
diagnosis were produced and questions regarding responses to symptoms I reported previously were answered.
(iii) I put questions to all, regarding the decision to withdraw medication.
47. At the time of writing this page, more than a month later (07 October), I have received no response from any of those parties.
48. Immediately after my medication was stopped, there began harassment which must have been intended to increase
my anxiety and probably to provoke an attack (e.g.: a stroke):
(i) when I would try to sleep, people would appear in the corridor, outside my door, talking loudly and shouting
(even at 03:00 or 04:00, which is unusual).
(ii) On one occasion, almost immediately after I fell asleep, at about 04:00, I was woken by people talking
loudly outside my door. I was unable to sleep again until about 08:00. At about 10:00, I was woken by a nurse,
who said he wanted to know why I was asleep. Nurses are not allowed to wake sleeping patients and, in the past,
have refused to get information I required from a patient because they said he was sleeping (at midday).
Why the Decisions must Be malicious
49. Elevated blood pressure is the most important risk factor for death and disability worldwide. The World Health Organisation states: " High blood pressure is one of the world's leading risk factors for death and disability. leading to an estimated 10.8 million avoidable deaths every year, and a burden of 235 million years of life lost or lived with a disability (disability-adjusted life years, DALYs) annually (3). High blood pressure causes more deaths than other leading risk factors, including tobacco use and high blood sugar. " - Second paragraph of the Executive Summary of the WHO's Report, to which that link points.
50. A hypertensive who reports numbness in his arm must immediately be sent to a hospital and scans performed.
In 2020, I was sent to hospital after nineteen hours and seen after twenty-four hours.
(i) The tests carried out at that hospital were not adequate; a scan should have been performed.
(ii) The Hospitals (both the mental hospital and the primary care hospital) should not have refused to inform
me of the results of my own tests.
51. I wrote to the Chief Executive of the NHS Trust that runs the hospital I was sent to when I reported those symptoms, in 2020. He was unable to justify the conduct of his hospital or to answer questions I put to him, regarding my treatment there.
52. As The table shows: A blood pressure reading of 196/120 is an emergency. I should immediately have been sent to a primary care hospital. Instead, I was provoked and then ignored for ten hours. The intention must have been to kill me.
53. The strange delays in prescribing medication must, in the context of all the decisions that were made at the time, and that have since been made, be viewed as further attempts to kill me. I am open to alternative explanations, if any can be offered.
54. The response to the symptoms I reported in 2021 is similarly inexplicable, except in the context of an attempt to murder. I shall not here repeat the facts stated previously.
55. Medication to manage hypertension greatly reduces the risk of stroke, coronary heart disease, kidney disease and heart failure. If a hypertensive does not take medication to manage hypertension, his chances of dying or serious injury (from stroke, heart attack, etc.) are greatly increased.
56. Hypertension is the second leading cause of kidney failure after diabetes .
57. Untreated hypertension can double the risk of chronic kidney disease
58. Acute kidney injury is a rare side effect of Ramipril, occurring in less than one percent of patients.
(i) The risk is higher in patients with pre-existing kidney disease or those taking certain other medications.
(a) I do not take any other medication and have no pre-existing kidney disease.
(ii) I had been taking Ramipril for nearly four years. For more than two of those years, I was routinely tested
and no problems were discovered.
(iii) The risk of medication-induced kidney injury is low, especially after 2 years of use without problems.
Those two years without problems mean my body is able to tolerate the drug.
(iv) If you discount the people who take certain other medicines, who have previous kidney or other health
problems and who develop side effects within the first two years, the number of people who develop complications
from Ramipril is negligible.
59. Titration is recommended practice, when introducing a patient to medication or withdrawing medication: quantities are increased gradually or decreased gradually, depending on whether the medication is being introduced or withdrawn. My medication was withdrawn abruptly. This is dangerous and in fact increases the chances of an attack such as a stroke or heart attack.
59. These facts considered, the decision to withdraw medication is beyond incompetence or medical error: in
light of all the other evidence, I can only view it as an open attempt at murder.
(i) These practitioners have exposed someone to a very great danger, in order to avoid a negligible danger.
(ii) I am more likely to suffer serious kidney damage (the side-effect they say they are trying to avoid) by
being denied Ramipril than by taking it.