Warning: this website discloses medical evidence proving that British surgeons, working within the NHS, conducted a covert experimental neurosurgical operation on a five-year-old child, illicitly and without medical justification, at the North Staffordshire Infirmary in 1967. This operation was motivated not for medical reasons, but in the interest of the pursuit of enhanced scientific knowledge.

These extraordinary and shocking revelations will challenge your faith in ethical medicine.

Special Operations in Medical Research: MRI Evidence

The images shown below from my Brain MRI scan conducted in 2008 at St Thomas' Hospital, London confirm that I was made the subject, at the age of nearly six, of experimental neurosurgery, on the pretext of a routine tonsillectomy procedure, for which my mother had given her explicit consent in exchange for significant financial remuneration. The procedure involved the implantation of a series of surreptitious (hidden) technical devices in my neck area (further evidence is also now revealed in a 2nd MRI scan conducted in 2013). In addition to these items revealed in my neck, there are indications also of a possible thoracic device – see Further Evidence. Until the year 2001, I had no knowledge or awareness that this had taken place (in 1967). Historical evidence and analysis of this medical crime is disclosed in my personal report, and enlargements of 3 MRI images are accessible below (click images to view slideshow):

Brain MRI image 7.13

MRI image 7.13

Brain MRI image 7.14

MRI image 7.14

Brain MRI image 7.15

MRI image 7.15

Brain MRI image 7.13 (detail)

Detail of above

Brain MRI image 7.14 (detail)

Detail of above

Brain MRI image 7.15 (detail)

Detail of above

The images displayed above are a sequence of 3 vertical (coronal) sections from Series 7 of an MRI scan made of my brain on 2nd October 2008 at St Thomas' Hospital, London. Each image is also shown in enlarged detail. Series 7 of the scan comprises 26 such vertical sections, beginning from the front of my skull and progressing rearwards. The images are transposed as in a mirror, so that the right half of the images represent the left side of the skull. Sequential slices are approximately 6mm apart.

The three selected images begin at a midpoint between front and rear and include the spinal column. A close look at these images reveals a foreign object to the left of the spinal column, just below the base of the skull. The object appears in cross-section as a small circular object with a cylindrical or torpedo-shaped projection, of at least 12-15mm in depth. In the enlargement of section 7.13 (7.13d) there appear to be two armatures or linkages associated with this object which proceed upwards toward the base of the skull. In the enlargement of section 7.14 (7.14d), approximately 6mm to the rear of 7.13, one gets a distinct impression of the internal 'C' structure of this object, and which indicates perhaps some clue as to its functional composition. In the enlargement of section 7.15 (7.15d), which is the furthest rear image in which the object is visible, it appears somewhat narrower and less circular than in the previous two images.

It is understood that the object revealed in these scan sections has been placed in my neck through an incision in the back of my throat, by surgeons at the North Staffordshire Infirmary (now the University Hospital of North Staffordshire) who conducted my tonsillectomy operation a week before my sixth birthday (for a discussion of the likely medical or technological determinants behind this undertaking see the page: Technological Imperatives).

Download zip archive containing all Series 7 images [1.42MB]

As referred to in Part 2 of my personal report (pp.48-60), I received a consultation over this scan from Dr Thomasin Andrews, a neurologist at Guy's Hospital, in April 2009, during which nothing anomalous was disclosed to me. The six-month delay before the consultation was due to the scan results not being sent back to the referring physician at the South London & Maudsley NHS Trust ('SLaM'), for a period of eleven weeks after the date of the scan itself, and it was not possible to make arrangements for a consultation until these were produced, in December 2008. It was not until December 2010 that I obtained my own copy of the scan. Since that time I have tried to obtain medical corroboration of this evidence, both through the NHS and privately, but the extremely controversial nature of the evidence has meant these attempts have so far proved unsuccessful, as no doctor has been prepared to take initial responsibility for its disclosure (see: Complaint to the GMC for further remarks).

Following the scan procedure, Dr Crews at the SLaM Trust informed me that he was having considerable trouble locating the scan results, but eventually the Radiology Dept. at St Thomas' Hospital sent a report of the MRI findings to the SLaM Trust on the 23/12/2008, i.e., eleven weeks following the date of the scan itself. I have seen the notes made by the SLaM Trust which relate to this report, which transcribe the findings as:

  • Ventricles normal.
  • There are a few small periventricular and subcortical sulci consistent with minor small vessel ischaemia.
  • There are tortuosities of the left vertebral artery leading to slight mass effect on the dorsal aspect of the medulla.
  • No evidence of trauma, brain injury or space occupying lesion.
  • Conclusion: Minor small vessel ischaemia. No significant intracranial abnormality identified.

There is nothing in these findings which alerts to any cause for concern, in view of my age, and nothing which identifies the significant anomaly revealed in the images above. In an attempt to locate a copy of the original report made by the Radiology Dept. at St Thomas' Hospital, I made a subject access request under the Data Protection Act to St Thomas' on 29/06/2012. I eventually received copies of my Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Trust ('GSTT') medical records from the Information Governance Dept. on 02/10/2012. However these did not include a copy of the MRI findings report. I then made an arrangement with the IG Dept. to view my records in person at the hospital on 13/11/2012. I also filed a complaint with the Information Commissioner's Office to address the failures in the IG Dept.'s response.

On viewing the online copy of my MRI scan (from 02/10/2008), in the relevant Reports section, the only written information was "no reports found". I insisted to the manager that there must have been a report, as one had been sent to the SLaM Trust on 23/12/2008. She said she would make enquiries with the Radiology Dept. I later received a call from the manager to say she had found the report, and I should return to the hospital to collect it.

I now have a copy of the missing MRI findings report (verified by Dr Scott Hawkins on 06/10/2008; first typed by "RJ1RANV" on 02/10/2008). The content is essentially the same as that transcribed into the SLaM notes, i.e., concluding with: "No significant intracranial abnormality identified".

In an update to my complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office I asked that they consider the following issues:

  • Why was there a delay of eleven weeks between the writing of the MRI findings report, and its being forwarded to the referring physician at the SLaM Trust?
  • Why was the findings report not attached to the online copy of my MRI scan?
  • Why did it take four-and-a-half months from the date of my subject access request, three separate visits to the IG Dept., and numerous telephone calls, for the IG Dept. to fulfil my request for a copy of the MRI findings report?

My own conclusion must be that, as the item revealed in the scan images above is significantly anomalous and highly controversial, the physician who wrote the report deliberately omitted to disclose the anomaly in order to occlude any further attention to it. I further conclude that the MRI findings report was then intentionally sequestered from my online record, in an attempt to obscure the identity of the reporting physician.

The office of the ICO advised me, on 14/03/2013, that it did not fall in the remit of the Data Protection Act to address either the issue of the eleven week delay in the initial forwarding of the MRI findings report, nor my wider suspicions regarding the reasons for the failure to attach that report to the online scan record. However, the ICO's office requested GSTT to explain the 'filing system' under which the MRI findings report was stored, and the reason it was not attached to the online record of the MRI scan. They advised me that in order to address my concerns falling outside the remit of the DPA, and if I was subsequently dissatisfied with GSTT's response to the ICO's enquiry, that I should complain separately to GSTT itself.

The response from GSTT to the ICO's enquiry, which was sent to me on 12/04/2013, included the following explanation:

"When a patient has a radiology exam at the Trust the images are taken and stored in the image application Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS). The image is then reported on by a radiologist and that report is written in another application called Computerised Radiology Information System (CRIS). If the digital stamp that is created by PACS for the image is not the same as for the report, then the report cannot be attached to the image in PACS. Therefore, when the Information Governance staff were looking for the report as an attachment to the image in PACS, it was not found and an assumption was made that one did not exist."

This explanation does not however explain under what circumstances the 'digital stamps' respectively created under 'PACS', and under 'CRIS', would permit a report ever to be successfully attached to the online copy of the scan, which we must expect to be the standard requirement. If the respective digital stamps are required to be identical, or to have some additional digital association, then why were they not so in the case of my scan images and report?

In view of my dissatisfaction with GSTT's response to the ICO, I submitted a complaint to GSTT's Complaints Office, on 19/03/2013. For the progress of this complaint, see: Complaint to GSTT.

back to top ^