An Important Mathematical Oversight

The original intention for this website was to encourage public awareness of an historical medical crime, one that has remained a tightly-kept British state secret now for more than five decades. The matter is of enormous public interest, not least because the motivation behind the crime itself was that of advancing scientific research into areas that would come to provide the seminal knowledge behind much of the technological progress of the last half-century. My investigation into the matter inspired a parallel enquiry into some of the fundamental principles that underpin that scientific and technological impulse.

There are therefore two principle concerns of this website, and if there is acknowledged to be a substantive connection between them, that has inevitably to do with late 20th Century developments in science and information technologies, and more broadly with the idea of an burgeoning technocracy – the suggestion of a growing alliance between corporate technology and state power – one that might be judged to have atrophied the powers conventionally assigned to liberal-democratic institutions. This link therefore serves as a segue to emphasise the equal importance, to my mind, of what is going on in the X.cetera section of the site, so that that section should not appear, from the point of view of the other, as some kind of afterthought.

X.cetera is concerned with a problem in mathematics and science to do with the way we think about numbers. As a subset of the category defined as integers, elements in the series of the natural numbers are generally held to represent quantities as their absolute, or ‘integral’, properties. It is argued that this conventional understanding of integers, which is the one widely held amongst mathematicians and scientists adopting mathematical principles, is the cause of a significant oversight with regard to changes in the relations of proportion between numerical values, i.e., when those values are transposed out of the decimal rational schema into alternative numerical radices such as those of binary, octal, and hexadecimal, etc.

On the page: The Limits of Rationality it is argued that the relations of proportion between integers are dictated principally by their membership of the restricted group of characters (0-9) as defined by the decimal rational schema; and that corresponding ratios of proportion cannot be assumed to apply between otherwise numerically equal values when transposed into alternative numerical radices having either reduced (as in binary or octal, for instance) or extended (as in hexadecimal) member-ranges.

This is shown to be objectively the case by the results published at: Radical Affinity and Variant Proportion in Natural Numbers, which show that for a series of exponential values in decimal, where the logarithmic ratios between those values are consistently equal to 1, the corresponding series of values when transposed into any radix from binary to nonary (base-9) results in logarithmic ratios having no consistent value at all, in each case producing a graph showing a series of variegated peaks and troughs displaying proportional inconsistency.

These findings are previously unacknowledged by mathematicians and information scientists alike, but the import of the findings is that, while the discrete values of individual integers transposed into alternative radices will be ostensibly equal across those radices, the ratios of proportion between those values will not be preserved, as these ratios must be determined uniquely according to the range of available digits within any respective radix (0-9 in decimal, 0-7 in octal, for instance); one consequence of which of course is the variable relative frequency (or ‘potentiality’) of specific individual digits when compared across radices. This observation has serious consequences in terms of its implications for the logical consistency of data produced within digital information systems, as the logic of those systems generally relies upon the seamless correspondence, not only of ‘integral’ values when transcribed between decimal and the aforementioned radices, but ultimately upon the relations of proportion between those values.

Information Science tends to treat the translation and recording of conventional analogue information into digital format unproblematically. The digital encoding of written, spoken, or visual information is seen to have little effect on the representational content of the message. The process is taken to be neutral, faithful, transparent. While the assessment of quantitative and qualitative differences at the level of the observable world necessarily entails assessments of proportion, the digital encoding of those assessments ultimately involves a reduction, at the level of machine code, to the form of a series of simple binary (or ‘logical’) distinctions between ‘1’ and ‘0’ – positive and negative. The process relies upon a tacit assumption that there exists such a level of fine-grained logical simplicity as the basis of a hierarchy of logical relationships, and which transcends all systems of conventional analogue (or indeed sensory) representation (be they linguistic, visual, sonic, or whatever); and that therefore we may break down these systems of representation to this level – the digital level – and then re-assemble them, as it were, without corruption. Logic is assumed to operate consistently without limits, as a sort of ‘ambient’ condition of information systems.

In the X.cetera section I am concerned to point out however that the logical relationship between ‘1’ and ‘0’ in a binary system (which equates in quantitative terms with what we understand as their proportional relationship) is derived specifically from their membership of a uniquely defined group of digits limited to two members. It does not derive from a set of transcendent logical principles arising elsewhere and having universal applicability (a proposition that, despite its apparent simplicity, may well come as a surprise to many mathematicians and information scientists alike).

As the proportional relationships affecting quantitative expressions within binary are uniquely and restrictively determined, they cannot be assumed to apply (with proportional consistency) to translations of the same expressions into decimal (or into any other number radix, such as octal, or hexadecimal). By extension therefore, the logical relationships within a binary system of codes, being subject to the same restrictive determinations, cannot therefore be applied with logical consistency to conventional analogue representations of the observable world, as this would be to invest binary code with a transcendent logical potential that it simply cannot possess – they may be applied to such representations, and the results may appear to be internally consistent, but they will certainly not be logically consistent with the world of objects.

The issue of a failure of logical consistency is one that concerns the relationships between data objects – it does not concern the specific accuracy or internal content of data objects themselves (just as the variation in proportion across radices concerns the dynamic relations between integers, rather than their specific ‘integral’ numerical values). This means that, from a conventional scientific-positivist perspective, which generally relies for its raw data upon information derived from discrete acts of measurement, the problem will be difficult to recognise or detect (as the data might well appear to possess internal consistency). One will however experience the effects of the failure (while being rather mystified as to its causes) in the lack of a reliable correspondence between expectations derived from data analyses, and real-world events.

So that’s some of what X.cetera is all about.. If you think you’re ‘ard enough!

[ PDF version ]

[ PDF version ]

[ PDF version ]

[ PDF version ]


Download my 167-page
report: Special Operations
in Medical Research

[pdf – 1.88MB]:

Download my Open Letter to the British Prime Minister & Health Secretary
[pdf – 363KB]:

The Limits of Rationality
(An important mathematical oversight)


Radical Affinity and
Variant Proportion in
Natural Numbers


Mind: Before & Beyond Computation

Dawkins' Theory of Memetics – A Biological Assault on the Cultural

Randomness, Non-
Randomness, & Structural Selectivity


C-Spine MRI Scan (July 2020)

I have experienced physical problems in the region of my thoracic spine for many years (see: Further Evidence, and also pp.17-20 & 26-32 of my report). However, in June 2015 there developed a new set of symptoms between my spine and left scapula (these are described in detail below). On 28/07/2020, in response to a marked flare-up of the symptoms, a C-Spine MRI scan was performed at a private clinic in Novi Sad, Serbia. I have reproduced below the first frame (“Fr.0”) from Series 4 of the scan with the title: eT1W_TSE (18 images in total):

C-Spine MRI Series4, Frame0

Fr.0 from Series 4 of the C-Spine MRI scan made on 28/07/2020 (with superimposed arrow)

In the image above there is revealed an object with an odd ‘tubular’ appearance to the immediate right of the spine (‘left’ in the image), but which also appears to extend across the front of the spinal column; i.e., in a vertical position just below the apex of the adjacent spinal scoliosis (see item identified by the arrow – click the image to enlarge). For reference and verification purposes, a copy of the full MRI scan is available to download as a ZIP archive below:

C-Spine MRI scan – Zdravlje Plus Clinic, Serbia, 28/07/2020 – – 44MB (cloud source)

Prior to the scan procedure, I described the history of the symptoms affecting the area in detail to the radiologist. However, there was no consultation with the radiologist following that procedure. The following day I received a copy of the scan together with a radiology report from the clinic’s reception. An English translation of the main content of the report is available below:

Radiology report from Zdravlje Plus Clinic – 29/07/2020
[ MRI_CSPINE_29.7.20_report(trans).pdf – 410KB ]

There is no mention in the scan report of my reasons for seeking the scan, and it makes no reference to my reports of the specific symptoms affecting the area; hence the report provides no satisfactory medical explanation for those symptoms. Nor is there any mention of any unexplained anomaly in the scan. The only issues revealed within the scan report are age-related degenerative changes to the cervical and thoracic discs, as well as my mild scoliosis.

I have no expertise in reading the scan images, but it seems that the item I have pointed out in the above image is a self-evident anomaly revealed by the scan (which means that we do not need an expert to point out its existence to us). While the report provided by the clinic is quite thorough in reporting upon issues internal to the spinal column in conventional diagnostic terms, it has nevertheless failed to acknowledge this self-evident anomaly adjacent to the right of the spine – the anomaly has been entirely overlooked in the clinic’s report.

History of the recent symptoms and the response from UK health services

In June 2015 I developed a set of complex and aggressive problems in the region between my thoracic spine and left shoulder-blade, and which I reported to my GP at that time. It was difficult to say what might have brought these symptoms on. There was no obvious physical injury to the area or incidence of conventional muscle-straining or the like; however, the symptoms emerged quite suddenly. They began with an ache between the spine and left shoulder blade, together with the feeling of a sharp ‘lacerating’ sensation; at other times a burning or stinging one, which would accompany certain kinds of movement in this area. Added to this there was a patch of skin about 7-8cm in diameter in which the flesh below the skin was quite numb to pressure. It felt at times as if there was something hot under the skin – the sensation one has when a sizeable area of tissue is trying to recover from a traumatic injury. Associated with this were certain neurological problems, including a transient and intermittent loss of feeling in the skin in other parts of my body, such as my lower left arm, left side of my head and neck, and left upper-thigh, together with some disturbance of cardiac rhythm. The symptoms local to the spine have persisted in a remitting and relapsing cycle since 2015, and, as referred to above, became increasingly aggressive and troublesome in July 2020, resulting for the first time in irruptions to the skin and a rash appearing there on two occasions within the space of a fortnight. Since July 2020, the area has been affected with persistent pain and inflammation without remission; although there has been no further recurrence of the effects to the surface of the skin. In spite of my attempts to alert my GP to the symptoms, and the GP’s referral for two separate MRI scans of my spine between July and September 2015 in response to those reports, the symptoms have been left largely unexamined and undiagnosed, and therefore untreated by UK health services.

The first response from my GP was to make an NHS referral for an osteopathic examination at the private BMI Hospital in Blackheath, London. Following a consultation with a spinal surgeon at the BMI, an MRI scan was performed of my thoracic spine on 23/07/2015 (“MRI-3”, available to download in its original form at the MRI Downloads page). The scan was scheduled as “MRI Spine thoracic”, and during the procedure I reported to the radiologist that there were specific concerns with the area between my spine and left scapula. Following the scan, the radiologist gave me a copy of the scan on disc. There is no verbal report on the scan included in the scan material and during my subsequent consultation with the same surgeon no anomalies (and no explanation for my symptoms) were reported to have been revealed by the scan. I received no radiological report on the scan either during or after my second consultation at the hospital.

Whole Spine MRI made at the Royal London Hospital (September 2015)

The BMI scan was followed closely by my GP’s referral for a neurological examination at the Royal London Hospital (‘RLH’ – a part of Bart’s & the London NHS Foundation Trust). The scan performed at RLH was initially scheduled by the first neurologist I saw there as: “MRI Whole Spine, MRI Shoulder Lt.”; and this is reflected in the letter received from the MRI Dept. notifying me of the scan appointment (see: MRI appointment letter – 21/08/2015). However, the scan actually performed on 11/09/2015 avoided to make a dedicated scan of the left shoulder (the scan is restricted to the width of the spinal column only – i.e., to the “Whole Spine” element of the original schedule), in spite of the fact that “MRI Shoulder Lt.” had clearly been part of the request made by the first neurologist, and had been initially scheduled by the MRI Dept. in its letter to me. There is no available explanation for why the scan had avoided the area of the left shoulder, as requested by the first neurologist, and promised in the appointment letter. That specific part of the request must therefore have been deliberately excluded by the positive intervention of someone in a senior position either at the Neurology Dept. or within RLH, following the letter to me from the MRI Dept. of 21/08/2015. There had however been no further discussion between anyone at RLH and myself between the date of my first appointment and the date of the scan procedure.

I received no textual report from RLH Neurology Dept. following the scan procedure, but within the electronic report included within the scan the only problems reported relate to mild age-related degenerative changes in the cervical discs, reported as: “narrowing of the left C6 and right C7 neural foramina”, in addition to “some minor lumbar facet degeneration”.

I addition to the inconsistency of the MRI Dept. having omitted a scan of the left shoulder, the electronic report states, under “Clinical Details”, and as the reason for the referral: “right shoulder numbness with burning shooting pain” (the scan performed however involved no dedicated attention to the right shoulder either). This was an utter perversion of the symptoms I had reported to the referring neurologist, which had concerned only the area between the spine and the left scapula, and had been the reason for that doctor to specify a dedicated scan of the left shoulder in addition to the whole spine in her initial request. There is no possible ambiguity involved in the instruction ‘left shoulder’; therefore I think it quite inconceivable that this misrepresentation of my symptoms could have arisen as an innocent mistake. In view of the self-evident anomaly to the immediate right of my spine as now revealed in the July 2020 scan, and which did not appear in the scan made at RLH, it seems clear that this problem was unfairly refused thorough examination or treatment by RLH in 2015.

The refusal of further physical assessment/treatment in the UK

Following the MRI scans conducted in 2015, and the refusal by RLH Neurology Dept. to thoroughly examine the area between my thoracic spine and left scapula, I began to formulate more concrete suspicions about what might have caused the sudden emergence of the symptoms in June 2015. I had good reason to suspect that I may have received two bouts of damaging microwave radiation from a mobile device carried in my backpack on two occasions during June 2015 (and never used otherwise by myself), and that the device had been modified with the specific intention of causing me an internal injury (i.e., as part of the series of sophisticated attempts on my life that are discussed in more detail in the page: Attempts on My Life). These suspicions are quite difficult to substantiate or explain in this context, chiefly because I no longer possess the mobile device in question. However, if this should later transpire to be the probable cause of these symptoms, then it is likely that they are the effects of an area of internal, probably irreversible, tissue damage: i.e., necrosis.

During 2016, as the symptoms were not subsiding and the problem itself was clearly resistant to healing, I made attempts to present my suspicions over the possible cause of the injury to my GP. I also gave her a comprehensive account of evidence pointing to the fact that clinicians at the Neurology Dept. of RLH had deliberately avoided examining the problem, following an exceptional intervention by someone in authority at the Neurology Dept. arbitrarily to prevent a dedicated scan of the left scapula, even though that part of the assessment had already been requested by the first neurologist I saw there, and scheduled by the MRI Dept. in its appointment letter to me. The evidence strongly suggested wilful negligence by clinicians at RLH, and indeed could be interpreted as their intention to prevent the discovery of medical evidence that might serve to prove the existence of attempts on my life. The evidence of negligence, including correspondence direct from RLH to my GP, gave ample reason for my GP to suspect that the problem had not been thoroughly examined by RLH, and to seek whatever further investigation might be available under the NHS. Such a response however would involve at least an implicit challenge from my GP to the latest decision by the lead clinician at RLH Neurology Dept., which was not to sanction a scan of the left shoulder (even though he could not himself provide a reason why that part of the scan had been latterly excluded). That alone would be a lot to expect from my GP; the further suggestion of a possible motive for RLH’s negligence being in concealing evidence of attempts on my life meant that my expectations of any positive action being taken by my GP on my behalf over the issue became greatly diminished.

In these discussions with my GP, it was not possible to explain the suspected cause of the exceptional injury to my back in any way other than as one of a series of attempts on my life. This element in itself acted to solidify my GP’s position in terms of responding not to a physical health problem, but of reacting to a perceived mental health one – an interpretation that she has since relied upon exclusively. It has indeed been the stock response from all local medical establishments in recent years to treat my reports of attempts on my life as the effects of a ‘delusional psychosis’; and in referring those reports exclusively for the attention of mental health services, to have successfully deferred any serious medical or legal attention to the actual physical evidence proving the fact of a series of attempts on my life.

What ultimately drives this response from front-line clinicians is not so much the suggestion of a willing ‘conspiracy’ to suppress attention to the evidence operating across the broad NHS, but rather it is the vulnerability felt by any individual clinician to the prospect of exposing their own professional liability by being seen to ‘advocate’ for the claims of a patient who has long maintained serious allegations of a criminal nature against several high-profile NHS bodies. In this arena of heightened sensitivity, the more palatable option for any front-line clinician is to assume the default prophylactic response, and to pass the buck of responsibility to another clinician. After all, one of the principle motivations behind the reported attempts on my life has to be understood as the need (including that amongst NHS executives) to continue in suppressing from public attention the reality of those alleged medical crimes.

My GP’s response to my reports of the continuing symptoms, that they must first be assessed by a mental health professional (in view of my speculations over the causes of those symptoms) was both tendentious and unhelpful; and, in addition to disregarding evidence pointing to RLH’s wilful negligence in its assessment of the problem in 2015, also disregarded two other important factors:

  1. That mental health professionals are neither obliged nor trained to assess material such as MRI scans in assessing a patient’s beliefs or reports about his physical health. Therefore, if there is MRI evidence that may corroborate a patient’s claims about his physical health (in my case I had made disputed claims about two existing MRI scans), then that evidence may not be fairly or objectively assessed merely by subjecting those beliefs and reports to a psychiatric ‘triage’.
  2. In my case there had been a series of spurious referrals made to mental health services by clinicians in several departments of Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Trust (‘GSTT’), and in my previous GP practice (Waterloo Health Centre), between 2011 and 2013, in response to allegations I had made of a cover-up by departments of GSTT of the evidence of my first Brain MRI scan (made at St Thomas’ Hospital Radiology Dept. in October 2008). These had resulted in a series of (still unresolved) complaints made against GSTT; against the South London & Maudsley NHS Trust (‘SLaM’); and against Waterloo Health Centre, between 2013 and 2015.

My GP was quite aware of the strength and substance of those complaints, and of the fact that they would by their very nature seriously inhibit my ability to engage in any further assessment by clinicians at SLaM (an engagement nevertheless entailed by her referral, as SLaM is the NHS Trust administering the local Community Mental Health Team). My GP’s insistence upon such a referral therefore merely served the appearance of an appropriate first-line response to my reports of symptoms following my suspicions of an attempt on my life, and was made in the knowledge that I could not with self-respect engage with the referral in any meaningful way. It was simply the least controversial response available to my GP, deeply sensitive to the issue of her own professional liability in the matter. Furthermore, the accumulation of spurious referrals to mental health services appearing indelibly within my medical records tended to function as a self-perpetuating myth, predisposing any future clinician redundantly to repeat the same referral process. This tendency was therefore quite counterproductive to my need to arrange appropriate physical attention to the chronic medical problem in my back.

The reticence that was noted above in the Serbian report towards the anomaly that is actually present in the latest scan seems fairly characteristic of the responses received from clinicians faced with the existence of what appears to be a series of illicit implants – as I have pointed out to exist within each of the earlier brain MRI scans (as discussed on other pages in relation to MRI-1 & MRI-2). I suggest it was merely a different aspect of this tendency towards reticence and oversight that drove clinicians at RLH Neurology Dept. to refuse to conduct a thorough examination of the areas adjacent to the thoracic spine; i.e., in order to pre-empt a situation in which those clinicians would be similarly compelled to cover-up evidence they anticipated may be revealed in the scan results that they were nevertheless obliged to produce. My confidence in this suggestion is based upon the fact that during my initial consultation at RLH (at which a scan of the left shoulder was actually formally arranged), I had given the neurologist a copy of an earlier edition of my report, which included the sections referring to the two earlier brain MRI scans; and in which I had also speculated over the possible existence of further illicit implants in my thoracic cavity (re: pages 29-32 & 45, in Part 1 of my report). It is established in his correspondence with my GP that the lead clinician at the Neurology Dept. was familiar with the content of my report. Hence, the exacerbation during July 2020 of the symptoms affecting the area of my thoracic spine with what continues to be fairly unremitting pain and inflammation reflects the progression and worsening of the problem following the decision by the Neurology Dept at RLH, subsequent to my initial appointment, to exclude a thorough examination of my left shoulder area in addition to the thoracic spine.

My continuing frustration with UK front-line health services

Following the scan made in July 2020, in early September 2020 I made a further approach to Blackfriars Medical Practice in an attempt to seek further medical examination of the symptoms still affecting the area to the left of my spine. I emailed my GP a copy of the image shown above, describing the recent exacerbation of the symptoms, together with images of the rash affecting the skin in the area, hoping she would agree to make some kind of referral for a second opinion on the latest scan, or some other appropriate examination. Her response was a blunt restatement of the position adopted by the practice four years earlier – to insist that any speculation I had about the causes of my symptoms that went beyond those reported in the existing radiological report must first be subject to a psychiatric triage.

Due to the coronavirus situation, I received only a telephone appointment with my GP. During the call, I suggested to her that the Serbian radiologist might have wished to avoid reporting upon the exceptional self-evident anomaly revealed by the recent scan in order to avoid a tsunami of controversy – i.e., with a view to limiting his professional liability in the matter – and that his resulting report might be less than a thorough and objective assessment, especially since he had limited his remarks to issues internal to the spinal column.

My GP’s response to a form of that argument was that it: “may be in the realm of delusion, which needs a review by a psychiatrist”. But my GP is aware, as he has been since 2016, that any suggestion of a referral to mental health services was an obligatory red-line for me that I could not with self-respect abandon. There had been a series of communications between my previous GP practice and departments of GSTT and of SLaM, in association with referrals made to the Community Mental Health Team (itself a subsidiary department of SLaM) between 2011-2013, that had included several deliberate falsehoods depicting aspects of my alleged behaviour, and which were explicitly defamatory and injurious to my character. These lies, involving false allegations of violent and aggressive behaviour on my part, were designed to silence my complaint against GSTT over its cover-up of the evidence of my Brain MRI scan by a failed, fraudulent attempt to invoke my detention under the Mental Health Act. They were in part the responsibility of a clinician at SLaM – the Consultant Liaison Psychiatrist Dr. Andrew Hodgkiss – who has never met or spoken to me, but who had been “shown sight” of my second letter of complaint against GSTT of 15/05/2013. His letter to my GP of 18/06/2013 was an attempt to invoke my detention under Section 37 of the Mental Health Act, and involved an illegal use of an exemption under the Data Protection Act in order to prevent my access to the letter (which was subsequently withheld from my access until July 2015).

I had not become aware of the referral until September 2013, following several approaches to me from my previous GP practice, Waterloo Health Centre (‘WHC’), and from the Community Mental Health Team (SLaM), as intentions to pursue the referral. I made numerous enquiries with both bodies over the medical justification for the referral and over the identity of the clinician responsible for initiating it, as well as to request a copy of the referral letter, but received no satisfactory response from either. The most information I could get was a statement from WHC that they had been “compelled” to make the referral by the Psychiatric Liaison Team at St Thomas’ Hospital (GSTT), with whom I had had no contact since my attendances at St Thomas’ Hospital A&E Dept. during December 2010 (re: Attempts on My Life, or pp.87-88 of my report). The timing of the referral indicated that it had been made as a response to my second letter of complaint to GSTT of 15/05/2013, and since GSTT’s own response to that complaint had been a two-line letter peremptorily dismissing the complaint out-of-hand, the referral itself figured as the sole meaningful response to that complaint. This encouraged me to enquire with GSTT’s Complaints Dept. on 30/09/2013 over the medical justification for the referral apparently made in response to my complaint of 15 May. I received a response 58 days later from Sally Brooks, head of Complaints, Litigation, & Risk at GSTT, in which she “categorically” denied that the referral had been made in response to my complaint and diverted my enquiry to SLaM, as SLaM is the NHS Trust which administers the Psychiatric Liaison Team (i.e., as a dedicated ancillary department to St Thomas’ Hospital A&E Dept.).

Between December 2013 and February 2014 I made numerous enquiries with SLaM over the origin and medical justification for the referral initiated by its Psychiatric Liaison Team, including a subject access request to SLaM’s Data Protection Team dated 06/12/2013. I was effectively ‘stonewalled’ in response to these enquiries, and ultimately refused a copy of the original referral letter (the same request was likewise refused by both WHC and GSTT, despite each organisation having knowledge and possession of it).

In the absence of the original referral letter, or of knowledge of the identity of the physician responsible for it, or of its medical justification, I was effectively disabled from raising any complaint against SLaM over the referral. That situation changed in July 2015 when I was finally given a copy of the referral letter in response to a subject access request made to Blackfriar’s Medical Practice (I had changed my GP from WHC to Blackfriar’s during December 2013). It then transpired that Dr. Hodgkiss had initiated the referral, and had exempted my access to it through an abuse of the ‘Third Party Exemption’ clause of the Data Protection Act 1998. It also became clear from the letter that it had been made as a direct response to my complaint to GSTT of 15/05/2013, implying that Sally Brooks’ categorical denial of that association in November 2013 had been blatantly dishonest.

I was finally able to raise a complaint with SLaM over the referral on 15/10/2015. However, in spite of the Trust’s published policy promising to formally respond to complaints within “25 working days”, no such response was forthcoming from the Trust until one year later in October 2016. The principle reason given by the Trust for this delay is that it needed to await a written response from Dr. Hodgkiss to my complaint letter (following my enquiries with GSTT, WHC, and SLaM during 2013, Dr. Hodgkiss had ceased to be employed at SLaM and had relocated to the Royal Marsden NHS Trust during 2014). However, SLaM’s formal response letter dated 20/10/2016 (which did not uphold the complaint) included no copy of, or direct quotation from, Dr. Hodgkiss’ written response, and as the Trust’s Data Protection Team has since obdurately refused to respond to my subject access request under the Data Protection Act (made in February 2017) for a copy of the doctor’s response letter, this complaint remains to this date unresolved.1

Hence, although I am aware that the policy currently maintained by Blackfriar’s Medical Practice – that of responding to my reports of symptoms as the effects of suspected attempts on my life by insisting upon a psychiatric ‘triage’ of those reports – is a policy imposed at the management level of the practice, my GP’s insistence upon the imperative of a referral that will automatically involve psychiatric assessment by clinicians from SLaM continues to act as an effective block upon my access through front-line health service to the kind of physical investigation that must itself be considered as imperative to the proper assessment of the physical problem that continues to affect my upper thorax. Blackfriars Medical Practice is in possession of my letters of complaint against SLaM and against Waterloo Health Centre over their libellous communications referred to above, and therefore it is a matter of spectacular insensitivity that my GP should now insist upon my being initially triaged by psychiatrists working within SLaM (or by any NHS psychiatrist for that matter) before I might hope to achieve any respectful physical assessment of the suspected injury to my back. Since a psychiatrist would be disinclined to consider any MRI scan evidence in his or her assessment, and would not therefore be in a position to definitively exclude the possibility of a physical anomaly revealed by the scan, should it not then have been more appropriate for my GP to refer me instead for a second radiological opinion on the latest scan, with its self-evident signs of an exceptional anomaly? I had asked for such a referral in my telephone call to her on 09/09/2020 – a request my GP simply dismissed, insisting upon the bugbear of her referral to SLaM instead. Could it be that my GP simply does not have an executive power of choice, in this instance, of doing what is clearly in the best interests of my health?2

27 April 2021
(revised: 5 May 2024)

back to top ^


  1. I am unable to publish online any of the correspondence referred to here relating to my complaints against Waterloo Health Centre and against the South London & Maudsley NHS Trust, as the material is openly defamatory and injurious to my character. [back]
  2. My relationship with Blackfriar’s Medical Practice is discussed further in the page: A Miscarriage of Civil Justice, in the section of that page subtitled: The conduct of my defence team during 2018 (revisited); as well as on pp.139-147 of my report. [back]