16. Antoinette's Death Certificate records she died on Friday, 28 May 2004. The cause of death at 1(a) records “Sepsis”, at (b) “Gangrenous foot” and (c) “Peripheral vascular disease”. Her death was just 19-days after being re-admitted into WPH, initially for treatment for acute ischemic pain in her right foot, to be remedied with angioplasty (stent implant[4]). Upon admission, she was independent and despite her ischaemic foot could walk. This turned into her most frightening nightmare as they ganged up on her and intentionally prevented her from receiving medical treatment. She went into hospital as a patient and died a victim. (Exhibit “4”) 17. Antoinette's health records note she bore 8 children and readily consented to medical investigation and surgical treatment, that included, inter alia, hip replacement surgery, hernia repair, vein stripping, appendectomy and shoulder replacement surgery although it later proved unnecessary. This must be seen in relation to the events as they unfold. 18. In his letter of 29 May 2002, her local General Practioner (GP), Dr John O'Dowd described her as a very sprightly 80-year old that had a history of increasing intermittent claudication to her right calf. When advised that it was unlikely that anything could be done at that stage to improve her symptoms, she requested a specialist review. …show more content…
Most intellectuals, pseudo and otherwise, deal with a complaint simply by ignoring it. They are aware of my complaint but have never attempted to refute the evidence as it obviously can’t be refuted. If, and when, they are investigated, with their scoffing arrogance, they will resort to personal attack and ridicule. The personal attack is intended to divert attention from the facts that my complaint is attempting to expose. I have therefore included in the attached ‘Supplementary Affidavit’, as is evident in the other sections herein, educated beyond their intelligence, they don’t know enough about what they don’t