On Saturday I was admitted to Newham Hospital by a junior A&E doctor. She made the mistake of not realising I was a political hot potatoe. I attended A&E and was admitted because the state of my spine had become seriously unstable.

Four days later, having had one X ray taken (of my chest not my spine) and some routine blood tests, I have been discharged by a Dr Zanakar (I think) saying my problems were better suited to being treated as an outpatient.

I said to him that as I was admitted because of the instability in my spine, no one had X rayed it, and he was not a spinal specialist, he was not in a position to make the decision to discharge me. “You are discharged”, he said before walking away.

Newham hospital is one of the worst hospitals in the country, according to government figures, according to the patients and according to the staff who work there (just look for stories on the internet).

This isn’t the main point. The main point is that my medical situation has become dangerous. The sometimes seemingly constructive medical negligence of people such as Dr Joseph Cowan (RNOH Stanmore), Professor Parveen Kumar (Royal London) and Dr Mike Polkey (Royal Brompton) has lead to a degredation in my physical well being that now threatens my life.

I don’t want to complain about doctors. I want a body that works. It is getting less and less likely that I can be restored to health. Time is a wasting, as are my muscles, and I find it hard to come to terms with facing a pointless early death because some doctors got it wrong.

The big-hitting city law firm Allen & Overy took a good look at freedomforall.net earlier this week. I know Allen & Overy well as they often used to work for me in my former life as a merchant banker. They are very good at what they do.

Their interest in freedomforall.net is probably in relation to Dr Richard Marley, Consultant Hepatologist at The Royal London hospital, and, I guess, a client of theirs. He is one of a number of doctors who have failed in their duty of care towards me. Last July he discharged me from the Royal london after I had endured a two week ‘hotelling’ there (bed, food - attrocious as it happens, no medicine - it must have been a cheap hotel).

I shall never forget the words he used “Mr Jee your problems are too complex for us to deal with so we are discharging you”. Not “Mr Jee your problems are too complex so have organised to transfer you to a half-decent hospital”, or some other such thing that would have made sense. No, I had an outpatient appointment coming up at the RNOH in Stanmore, that would do. It was the first and only time I had met Dr Marley despite my being under his “care” at the hospital for over a week.

Knowing - as he should have done from the team of Dr Mike Glynn - that relations between the Consultant in charge of my care at the RNOH, Dr Joseph Cowan, and myself had broken down irretrievably, Dr Marley should have acted with greater care. However it seems he may have been blinded from doing so by allegiance to higher authorities or colleagues or the fact the two of his hospitals nurses had physically assaulted me creating a somewhat difficult situation.

Other than that his involvement in my case is something I can only guess at and as such I realise I have made some assertions in my recent posts that are too strong to be supportable, especially given the will and ability of doctors to back each other up at all costs (and seemingly at any cost to their patients).

I therefore appologise unreservedly to Dr Marley for any errors I have made in print. I have carefully reviewed my recent posts and edited them to ensure their factual accuracy with regards to Dr Marley’s involvement. I am quite certain there is nothing left here that Allen & Overy or their client can take exception to. If there is I am sure they will be kind enough to draw my attention to it so that I can review my editorial judgements in the light of such information.

Lies are woven into my fabric, they are the shifting ground upon which the abused child builds the shaky house of self. The abuser uses lies to create the myth of his omnipotence over the child and their very life, thus creating the double binds which ensure the silence and brokenness of the victim.

The black and white thinking concommitant with a history of abuse and the subject of lies and truth are interwoven in the psyche of the victim through this double bind and the edge of rage which lies at one side of it and the chasm of fear that lies at the other.

The fear engendered in me by people lying to me is more related to the original fear of my abusers than related to the fear of what the lies can do to me. It’s simple: you lie: there is no trust: there is no trust you are not safe.

To me lies and truth matter more than anything. It is only when i am relating to persons with whom I do not fear a breech of honesty is likely that i can unfold and become myself in a relaxed way. As soon as the walls go up in fear of being lied to I will not relax again.

As a victim it is natural to create the situations where these feelings will arise and then fall back in a manageable way. This expression of the latent instincts and its repression are a major factor in the internal walls of denial that allow the whole charade to sustain.

To get the feeling one is being lied to and to challenge it head on in an appropriate way is a hard learning curve for the victim. It involves scaling the wall of fear created by the abuse and related threats or violence used to ensure silence is not broken.

This wall of fear, and fear that one will explode with rage, are however really quite empty when looked at closely. They are traces of the past, lines in chalk marking a place you were in once. As such they can be overcome with patience and compassion. Then one starts to find oneself in a place where one can ask the question “are you lying to me?” without it being the end of the world, whatever the answer.

Oh, and for those who know me, now you understand why I don’t do lies.

This morning I telephoned “Operation Saphire” - the Metropolitan Police’s unit dealing with sexual assault and childhood sexual abuse. I explained the situation I am caught in and, having discussed the options open to me, the officer gave me some surprising advice.

She explained that medical negligence is always hard to prove and that criminal intent is even harder still to prove. She advised me that I should either travel to a different part of the country and use an assumed name or travel abroad in search of medical assistance.

The last thing, frankly, that I expected from the police was such incredibly practical thinking. that my mother and all of my friends are advising me to leave the country was surprising enough. That the Met agree is a shock beyond belief.

I have rethought this I wonder if Parveen Kumar hasn’t heard my name since that ill fated consultation. So looks like if I am now right I may be appologising. When life gets scary, I get kind of crazy I guess, but I’ve always stood up when I am wrong and will now if I am.

The Royal Brompton have not been forthcoming with an appointment for me to see another physician this week to go over the results of the recent tests and the problem with my diaphragm. They can do one next week, when coincidentally, Mike Polkey will return from his holiday and be in a position to brief colleagues and stage manage things.

Parveen Kumar is Director of Continuing Professional Development (CPD) at The Royal College Of Physicians. As such she could have done somewhat better in her consutation with me in February 2005.

* Professor Kumar conducted an extremely painful rectal examination and assured me everything was “fine” though also saying my muscles would “never recover”.

* Professor Kumar later admitted in a letter to my GP that colo-rectal medicine was not her specialty and referred me to her colleague Professor Williams for further examination

* Professor Kumar waited more than a year whilst my physical health deteriorated before admitting she should not have undertaken the initial examination.

* Professor Kumar patronised me saying “you’ve been looking in the anatomy books haven’t you” (I had not) and “we must get you to concentrate less on your body” (the opposite is true).

Since then colleagues at the Royal London Hospital Whitechapel and now at the Royal Brompton Hospital have misinterpreted findings and ignored obvious serious pathology. British medicine is either very sick or very stupid. Either these people actually think I do not have a physical problem or, it would seem, in order perhaps to try and ensure their colleagues impunity, all the doctors who now look at me see no problem. Should they confirm what is wrong with me and deal with it they will prove their colleagues previous negligence.

I have rethought some of my interpretation around these events. I suspect Parveen Kumar has better things to do than be silly on my behalf. There has undoubtedly been medical negligence involved in my case to a serious extent, some of it professor Kumars. However I think active attempts to ensure I do not get healthcare are coming from another direction. Please see this story.

When Joseph Cowan of The Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital in Stanmore (RNOH) And Parveen Kumar of The Royal London Hospital Whitechapel formed their mistaken doctorly “opinions” two years or so ago that determined my physical problems were behavioural they were medically negligent and wrong. They were acting against the psychiatric advice in hand and forming opinions outside of their respective specialties, then using these opinions as reasons not to properly investigate my problems. Since that time only the doctors at the London Chest Hopsital and the Neuro-urology team at the RNOH have done the right thing.

The latest bizarre twist is my experience under Dr Mike Polkey at The Royal Brompton. When I saw him in clinic in August he said I must not undergo any anaestethic as it is quite possibly life threatening. I had to undergo the tests he was going to do of diaphragmatic dysfuntion. Even with me just laying on a couch he could identify problems with my breathing.

On Thursday, after two days in The Royal Brompton Hospital, cursory examinations of diaphragmatic function were done. On the first sniff test the clinician told me my diaphragm functioned normally. It was an attempt not to do the more reliable tests they then did undertake but only at my insistence.

Those tests showed my diaphragm, on the right, operates at as low as 50% of the expected force. This is because it is drawn down into my abdomen as part of the twisting of my lower body and is partially enervated at all times. When forced into enervation, induced by the magnetic loop stimulating the phrenic nerve, the diaphragm cant move as far as it should because it is already impacted on the liver.

Dr Mike Polkey decided to interpret the unfortunate results of this test as showing no dysfunction, beggaring belief in his ability to be downright fraudulent. This also contradicts the findings of the London Chest Hospital that my diaphragm shows “no significant difference in .. position at any stage of the respiratory cycle.”

He then said the tests had been elective which contradicted his earlier indication that they were essential and life protecting and should take first place in a number of ivestigations. “It is clear to me your physical symptoms have not been thoroughly enough investigated”, he said, in that first consultation.

Luckily a witness to the entire unfolding lie was there in the face of an intern from spain. She agreed I had been right. “I remember your consultation”, she said, “you told us your diaphragm does not work on the right side and this test shows you were right”.

When Doctor Polkey found to his embarrassment that I was not going to roll over quietly and let him get away with it he tried to unceromoneously boot me from the hospital. When told he couldn’t and that no ambulance was available until Monday he ordered hundreds of pounds of tax payers money to be spent on a private ambulance from Harley Street Ambulances to do the 25 mile round trip bringing me home, and out of his hospital, immediately.

He was either wrong and negligent in his duty of care to me when he ordered me home on the tube or he was wrong to order the ambulance and waste public money. He can’t have it both ways unfortunately for him.

The ambulance driver who took me home was telling me of a senior consultant who took four years and lots of money to prove another doctor had been negligent crippling his wife. I don’t have either to play with anymore.

Parveen Kumar, in clinic in February 2005, told me I had “been looking in the anatomy books too much” and that I should “stop focussing on my body so much”. My muscles would, she said, “never recover” even though “eveything is quite good up there really”. This was following a painful rectal examination with no anaesthesia offered despite knowing I was a victim of childhood rape.

She said during the consuultation she “would not know where her psoas was”. Which is worrying coming from such a medical god who wrote the book, and ought to know where such an important parapspinal muscle lay. Later in a letter to my GP she revealed she was not a “colo rectal specialist” and could not further any appropriate investigations.

She transferred me to a colleague after agreeing on the telephone to my GP that she would arrange an MRI. She waited a month after the phone call - a further waste of my time - to let my GP know in writing she had changed her mind and wasn’t qualified to investigate these matters.

Stupidly these people seem to think if enough of them ignore me for long enough I will quietly die and they can get on uninteruppted by guilt with their self centred lives. In that they are wrong. I’m a survivor par excellence and i’m going to pay them back, fully, in court and before the GMC, whatever it takes, to take away their right to carelessly toss away lives through negligence, fraud and corruption.

Well what a surprise. Yesterday the study of my diaphragm at the Royal Brompton showed the the right hemisphere of my diaphragm shows 50% of the normal response. This was with the phrenic nerve being stimlated artificially and thus removing any psychological factors.

This morning Dr Mike Polkey was “happy” to tell me that he has chosen to interpret this as normal and that medicine is “always a matter of interpretation”. I am left wondering what this age of “evidence based medicine” is all about - if the evidence will always be subjected to “interpretation”. The point of the test that was undertaken was to remove psychological factors and see in the raw what my body would do. Of course what we see now is clear and it is what I have been saying all along: The psychological issues “troubling” me lay not in my head but in the heads of the quacks.

After I insisted on transport home Dr Polkey told me that couldn’t be organised before Monday. I pointed out that he was wrong in his interpretation and had the audacity to do so in front of some nursing staff. The shit hit the fan big time. Suddenly I was to be sent home on public transport. I insisted on a social services assesment as it is no longer safe for me to be at home on my own.

Dr Polkey said I didn’t need one and withdrew the offer of transport on Monday telling me I could take the tube and that it’s perfectly safe. I tried to show him the problems with my spine that make it not so and he raised his hands saying “I don’t know about the spine that is not my area of expertise”. He insists it’s safe yet claims he doesn’t know a thing about the spine which is the part that makes it not safe …. so ….. anyone else see the problem here.

The politics of this situation have gotten out of hand. I think it is time for some sense to be allowed back in to the situation. Dr Polkey, it would seem based on the evidence at hand, had been gotten at by someone who does not want my problems dealt with.

Dr Polkey and his colleagues need to remember why they went into medicine: Not for the aggrandisement of their ego’s, one at least hopes, but to heal the sick. On second thoughts the evidence before my eyes tells me I have that entirely wrong. Poor people they know not what they do.

Today I was subjected to yet another sad form of denial in the NHS. A test of my diaphragm whereby the phrenic nerve was stimulated, showing scientificly the rate of enervation, and therfore not subject to my psychology was labelled as normal. The results should have shown greater than 7 on the scale for the right side and greater than 8 for the left side. The left was normal reading 8.1 the right averaged 3.5, only 50% of the expected figure.

The chart was on the wall, the numbers were before my eyes, and still the clinician wished to purvey this as a normal result.

I carry injuries sustained in infant rape and have been disabled by the NHS. I have been subjected to medical mistreatment and negligence by two prominent physicians, Dr Joseph Cowan, of the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital Stanmore and Professor Parveen Kumar of the Royal London Hospital Whitechapel.

When are doctors going to stop trying to defend the indefensible actions of their colleagues and start doing the right thing? When is the denial of physical injury sustained in childhood and infant rape going to end? I know I am right in every word I write here and so do the doctors concerned. If they think otherwise I challenge them to pursue me through the courts. The only reason I am not pursuing them yet is that I am focussed on getting the right treatment for my injuries. I will pursue them later and with a vigour which will make them and any colleagues who fail from this moment forward to do the right thing shake in their boots and regret their indefensible actions.

Swift appologies and appropriate healthcare can solve this. Nothing else will. You have dug yourselves into a hole you will regret digging unless you do the right thing now. Be warned I am no fool.