“Though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back… she would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward.” - Aslan, C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
Showing posts with label clinical negligence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label clinical negligence. Show all posts

Know Thy Enemy: Recognising and Managing Severe Asthma


๐Ÿ–‹ ๐’ฎ๐’ฒ๐’œ๐’ฉ๐’ฆ Dispatch | 6 February 2025
A Taxonomy of Medical Incompetence: The Patterns of Eosinophilic Asthma They Refused to Learn

๐Ÿ“ Filed From: Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
✒️ Author: Polly Chromatic
๐Ÿ—‚ Filed Under: Eosinophilic Asthma · Clinical Illiteracy · Respiratory Misclassification · Diagnostic Sloth · SWANK Medical Archive · Archive of Airborne Disdain

๐Ÿงฌ To the Clinicians Who Confused Pride for Practice:

Glen Peache, Sarah Newman, Eric Wedge-Bull, Kirsty Hornal, Rhiannon Hodgson, Fiona Dias-Saxena, Rachel Pullen, Milena Abdula-Gomes, Samira Issa
Cc: Annabelle Kapoor, aaforbes@gov.tc, alsmith@gov.tc
Bcc: Laura Savage, Simon O’Meara, Philip Reid, Gideon Mpalanyi, Nannette Nicholson

I. ๐’ซ๐“‡๐‘’๐“๐’พ๐“‚๐’พ๐“ƒ๐’ถ๐“‡๐“Ž ๐’ช๐’ท๐“ˆ๐‘’๐“‡๐“‹๐’ถ๐“‰๐’พ๐‘œ๐“ƒ๐“ˆ

Eosinophilic Asthma is not “complex.” It is merely chronically mismanaged by those who approach medicine as if diagnostic uncertainty were a form of charm.

To require a patient to research, document, and demand treatment for a respiratory disorder while gasping for air is not a lapse in judgment. It is clinical misconduct, gift-wrapped in arrogance.

II. ๐’ซ๐’ถ๐“‰๐“‰๐‘’๐“‡๐“ƒ๐“ˆ ๐’ด๐‘œ๐“Š ๐’ฒ๐‘œ๐“Š๐“๐’น ๐’ฆ๐“ƒ๐‘œ๐“Œ ๐’พ๐’ป ๐’ด๐‘œ๐“Š ๐’ฒ๐‘’๐“‡๐‘’ ๐’œ๐’ธ๐“‰๐“Š๐’ถ๐“๐“๐“Ž ๐’ฏ๐“‡๐’ถ๐’พ๐“ƒ๐‘’๐’น:

  • Persistent Inflammation:
    Unlinked to pollen, pets, or other folklore triggers.

  • Treatment Resistance:
    Inhaled corticosteroids fail. Biologics are met with your blank stares.

  • Frequent Exacerbations:
    Not episodes, not flare-ups—institutionally manufactured suffocation.

  • Comorbidities Ignored:
    Nasal polyps, AERD, sinus inflammation—none of which appear in your paperwork but all of which inflame the lungs.

  • Eosinophilic Evidence:
    Documented in blood and sputum. Refused in clinic.

  • Non-Allergic Triggers:
    Chlorine, cleaning products, bureaucrats. The usual culprits.

III. ๐’ช๐“…๐“‰๐’พ๐“‚๐’ถ๐“ ๐‘€๐’ถ๐“ƒ๐’ถ๐‘”๐‘’๐“‚๐‘’๐“ƒ๐“‰ (Not That You Asked):

  • Proper Diagnostics:
    FeNO, blood eosinophils, sputum cytology—science, not vibes.

  • Correct Treatment:
    Mepolizumab. Benralizumab. Not “come back when it gets worse.”

  • Comorbidity Integration:
    ENT referrals. Not safeguarding referrals.

  • Environmental Adjustment:
    Avoid bleach. Avoid disbelief. Avoid clinicians who sigh when you speak.

IV. ๐’ž๐‘œ๐“ƒ๐’ธ๐“๐“Š๐“ˆ๐’พ๐‘œ๐“ƒ

Your ignorance has been noted. Your omissions archived.
This isn’t advocacy. It’s autopsy.

—

Polly Chromatic
Breathing in spite of institutional sabotage.
๐Ÿ“ Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
๐ŸŒ www.swankarchive.com
๐Ÿ“ง director@swanklondon.com
© SWANK London Ltd. All Airways Monitored.


No comments:

£23 Million: The Price of Ignoring Medical Evidence and Inviting Retaliation


⟡ The Hospitals That Called Social Services When I Asked to Breathe ⟡

Filed: 1 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/GMC/DUAL-SUBMISSION-NEGLIGENCE
๐Ÿ“Ž Download PDF — 2025-05-01_SWANK_GMC_Complaint_StThomas_Chelsea_DisabilityNeglect_SafeguardingAbuse_£23MClaim.pdf

I. £23 Million: The Price of Ignoring Medical Evidence and Inviting Retaliation

This dual complaint, filed with the General Medical Council, names:

  • Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust

  • Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

The charges:

  • Clinical negligence during documented respiratory crisis

  • Dismissal of protected disability adjustments

  • Use of “safeguarding” as reputational defence

  • Retaliatory contact disguised as care coordination

What they couldn’t treat, they investigated.
What they ignored, they weaponised.
What they feared — was documentation.

II. When Hospitals Operate Like Surveillance Branches

The evidence shows:

  • Medical notes vanished from timelines

  • Allergy labels overridden with procedural shrugs

  • Formal complaints followed by multi-agency escalation

  • Disability treated not as protected, but inconvenient

This wasn’t poor communication.
It was bureaucratic violence under clinical letterhead.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because medical malpractice is not neutral when it follows complaint.
Because no hospital has the right to summon safeguarding for a diagnosis it refused to read.
Because when patient harm is followed by agency collusion, the bill is measured in millions — and exhibits.

Let the record show:

  • The doctors knew the condition

  • The trust ignored the adjustment

  • The patient collapsed

  • And SWANK — filed the damages, formatted by respiratory episode

This isn’t a case file.
It’s a legal artefact of NHS-enabled sabotage.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not permit the NHS to use “concern” as a shield against liability.
We do not allow hospitals to threaten disabled mothers into submission.
We do not believe safeguarding is lawful when it follows whistleblowing.

Let the record show:

The care was delayed.
The asthma worsened.
The mother reported.
And SWANK — filed £23 million in civil response.

This is not anecdotal.
It’s court-sealed, regulator-notified, and irrevocably archived.




No comments:

Documented Obsessions