A letter addressed to A/Prof. Andrew Brooks, Urologist, dated Thu. 4 Feb. 2021

A/Prof. Andrew Brooks

Dear Sir

If readers Google “Dr Andrew Brooks Ratemds” they be will be taken to 13 ratings on you – as at Thu. 4 Feb. 2021. The earliest 3 are really bad, but then there are 9 in a row which almost claim you are some sort of saint, perhaps some sort of god, presumably at your behest, as you became aware of the really bad ones, with one from me in the middle of the 9, dated June, 2017, which sets out an email I’d sent you.

Of course you didn’t reply to this email – didn’t even acknowledge it. But no doubt it being there annoyed you.

If you go to the rating dated May 6, 2017, you will see that it reads, “When I recently showed the comment, (my comment,) about the 70 year old to Dr Brooks he explained that the elderly gentleman has mental problems and complains about lots of doctors. He also said he is also making up a lot of lies. Dr Brooks is one of the most honest and ethical doctors I have dealt with. I will vouch for his character. He is also happy to give you his mobile and email which he responds promptly to.

Of course, the reality is that I’ve sent you more than 40 emails and you’ve only ever acknowledged and responded to one – one in which I sought details as to how best to send you your $3,200 fee for less than and hours work. And these days you don’t seem to have even one email address that works.

Then a rating dated August 12, 2019, reads, “I asked Dr Brooks about the other rating below, (my rating,) and he said it was written by a patient who is mentally ill who keeps contacting him and stalking him. The comment about the turf (sic!) operation, is not the Dr Brooks I know.”

Do you really think I’m mentally ill? Perhaps we could discuss it, soon, on this website, or elsewhere. Or perhaps what you told these two people, and perhaps many others, is the sort of lies you seem to tell at the drop of a hat, when it suits you.

Email me at info@questionsmisc.info.

Yours faithfully

Thu. 4/2/2021

A note for readers: Dr Brooks has been advised by an Australia Post letter, that, in future, he will be deemed to have received any letters which have been put up on this website, like the one above. The email address on his website, admin@andrewbrooks.com.au, has been taken down and doesn’t work; he claims he doesn’t receive emails sent to his email address on the Sydney University’s website, andrew.brooks@sydney.edu.au; and why should we or anyone else have to go to the trouble of setting themselves us to send faxes just for him, and why should we have to go to the trouble of sending him letters through Australia Post. And it makes it easy for him – he can respond using our email address – info@questionsmisc.info. If he doesn’t bother to check this website for letters deemed to have sent to him, which only takes a few seconds a day, that’s his problem. And any letters any of our readers wish to send him, can be put up in the same way.

info@questionsmisc.info

Posted in Uncategorized | 341 Comments

A letter addressed to A/Prof. Andrew Brooks, Urologist dated Wed. 3 Feb. 2021

A/Prof Andrew Brooks

Dear Sir

After my first consultation with you, you wrote to my GP, “His urodynamic study indicates the high pressure-low flow rate indicative of bladder outflow obstruction.” “He has quite a marked degree of prostatic hyperplasia at 62 mls.”

Are you yet prepared to release a copy of the “urodynamic study” on which you based these comments? – I note that you haven’t been prepared to do so in the past, despite the many requests sent to you, and despite the fact that I’m entitled to receive one, by law.

It seems to me that it may have been faulty, leading you to make an erroneous diagnosis and a recommendation as to treatment for the “frequency problem” I was experiencing and which I’d been referred to you for help with, and which, when carried out, FAILED COMPLETELY!

info@questionsmisc.info

Yours faithfully

Wed. 3/2/21

A note for readers: Dr Brooks has been advised by an Australia Post letter, that, in future, he will be deemed to have received any letters which have been put up on this website, like the one above. The email address on his website, admin@andrewbrooks.com.au, has been taken down and doesn’t work; he claims he doesn’t receive emails sent to his email address on the Sydney University’s website, andrew.brooks@sydney.edu.au; and why should we or anyone else have to go to the trouble of setting themselves us to send faxes just for him, and why should we have to go to the trouble of sending him letters through Australia Post. And it makes it easy for him – he can respond using our email address – info@questionsmisc.info. If he doesn’t bother to check this website for letters deemed to have sent to him, which only takes a few seconds a day, that’s his problem. And any letters any of our readers wish to send him, can be put up in the same way.

info@questionsmisc.info

Posted in Uncategorized | 84 Comments

A/Prof. Andrew J Brooks, Urologist – dealing with 1

If you go to our post dated 27 January, 2021, you can view a “snail mail” letter which was sent to Dr Brooks through Australia Post on 27 January, 2021. Normally, such letters would be sent by email, but Dr Brooks doesn’t have an email address on his website – just a fax number. He used to have an email address – admin@andrewbrooks.com.au – on his website, but it no longer appears there. He still has an email address on the Sydney University’s website – andrew.brooks@sydney.edu.au. And both of these email addresses were also used to send him this letter. But, as in our experience, Dr Brooks almost always denies that he received emails, this letter was also sent through Australia Post.

(To be fair, he did acknowledge one of our emails once, quickly and efficiently – an email requesting details on how best to forward his $3,200 fee for less than an hours work.)

It’s to provide assistance to those already dealing with Dr Brooks and those considering dealing with him and to make it as easy as possible for him to answer any questions they may have in dealing with him that this that this website has been created.

We’ll let our readers know if and when we hear from him in any way.

info@questionsmisc.info

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on A/Prof. Andrew J Brooks, Urologist – dealing with 1

A “snail mail” letter sent to Dr Brooks through Australia Post on 27 Jan. 2021

A/Prof. Andrew J Brooks

Dear Sir

You will recall that, back in 2014, as a male in my 70s, I was referred to you by my GP for help with what is commonly called the “frequency problem” – I was having to get up two or three times a night to urinate, which made it difficult to get a good night’s sleep. Your diagnosis was that, from years of having to force urine past a partially blocked urinary tract, my bladder had become more muscular and therefore smaller, and so was filling up more quickly. The solution you advocated was that you carry out on operation on me, called a TURP, in which any partial blockages in my urinary tract would be removed, and if these were removed, my bladder would soon revert to a more normal size, largely within 3 months.

Following an initial consultation with you, which I had on 5 August, 2014, you wrote to my GP, claiming, amongst other things, that “he has had no response to oral agents over several years,” which of course wasn’t true, a figment of your imagination – seeing my GP and you was the first and only thing I’d done about my frequency problem.

Going ahead with this operation involved paying you a fee of $3,200 for, as I’ve been told, less than an hours work, and 48 hours in a hospital at a cost of $4,800, but I trusted you, and had your operation on 13 August, 2014. As I subsequently found out, an alternative diagnosis, a much more likely diagnosis, would have been that my bladder was still relatively normal in size, but that, in fact, it had grown weaker, weaker to the point that quite a lot of urine was left in it after I urinated, and that was the reason it was being full again sooner, and nothing could be done about weak bladders – no $3,200 fees for anyone.

Obviously the size of my bladder at the time was crucial in deciding which diagnosis was the right one. To support your diagnosis, you had your nurse carry out the tests to determine it’s size. I’ve since learnt that it would have been more normal to have a proper Urologist carry out these tests – who would, in fact, have charged less that was charged for your nurse to carry them out. AND, despite all my efforts int the years since, Ive never been able to get a copy of what your nurse reported. On 15 September 2015, I sat you a fax saying, “Could you please send me, as a matter of urgency, copies of the health information you hold on me, in particular the “urodynamic study” you relied on when you advised me that a transurethral resection of my prostate would help with my frequency problems” – a fax which you ignored, of course. When I subsequently sought the assistance of the NSW Privacy Commissioner to get a copy, advising her that, amongst other things, you had ignored 3 emails I’d sent you requesting copies of things to which I was legally entitled, you will recall that your response to her was that you hadn’t received my emails because your email address was set up in such a way that it “weeded out” emails from patients so you didn’t receive them – this, despite the the fact that I’m advised by technology people that setting up an email address in this way isn’t possible, and that when I’d sent you one email, an email enquiring about how best to pay your $3,200 fee, it was acknowledged and responded to extremely promptly. Eventually, with the help of the Privacy Commissioner, I did get a copy of 2 or 3 documents – but never a copy of your nurse’s report. Even the Privacy Commissioner gave up on this. The obvious suspicion is that it didn’t support your diagnosis at all.

So, as I say, I had the TURP. AND, you yourself admitted in writing that it hadn’t helped in any way. On 9 September, 2014, you wrote to my referring GP, claiming, “He has had a significant improvement in flow rate since undergoing transurethral of the prostate. He still has significant frequency and urgency,” and mentioning for the first time, you hadn’t mentioned it before, that what you had put me through only worked in 4 cases out of 5, it didn’t work at all in 1 case out of 5, obviously suggesting that I was one of those 1 cases out of 5.

Three things are to be said about this.

Firstly, how would you have known that there had been a significant flow rate? You would think that a physical examination would be required to ermine whether this was the case or not – and there had been no physical examination. It would seem that you were claiming this just because it sounded good.

Secondly, you mentioned for the first time an “urgency” problem – what urgency problem? To me this was another figment of your imagination. I’d never had an urgency problem.

Thirdly, who was to say that it ever worked? You were admitting that it hadn’t worked in my case, but who was to say it had worked in other cases? What evidence was there for this?

On 18 November, 2014, after another consultation, when you again wrote to my referring GP, you more or less repeated what you’d said in your letter of the 9 September, 2014, but added an explanation as to why what you’d put me through hadn’t worked in my case – “this is due to the altered bladder wall compliance and loss of functional volume that occurs and occasionally does not remit following relief of the the out flow obstruction,” whatever that means. And also adding, “I have prescribed Oxytrol patches,” which you seemed to think would help with my alleged “urgency” problem. Trusting you again, I paid for some Oxytrol patches and started applying them. But then I Googled “Oxytrol patches” and the results indicated that they were for the treatment of problems that I just didn’t have, and so I trashed them.

And something you didn’t mention in any of your correspondence – your TURP had diminished my sex life for the rest of my life, it can’t be reversed, in that the semen I produced during an orgasm was no longer ejected trough my penis giving me all the pleasure this involves, as any male would understand, it’s just pumped up into my bladder. And this doesn’t happen sometime with TURP operations, it ALWAYS happens. Despite your claim in your first letter to my referring GP, that you “had explained the risks and complications” of the TURP operation, you had never mentioned this. One can imagine that if a thug bashed someone causing this damage to his sex life for the rest of his life, that this thug would end up being sent to gaol, perhaps for a very long time. But in my case it was caused by a doctor who was supposed to be helping me.

Four or five days ago, for the fifth time, someone rang me claiming to be speaking on your behalf and requesting that I take down the material I have put up on the internet about my experiences with you. My response has always been the same – that I would be happy to add your side of the story, but that I’ve sent you at least 30 letters, by email, fax and snail mail, giving you the opportunity to tell your side of the story, and I’ve never heard from you. Again, may I say, I would be happy to publish your side of the story.

Yours faithfully

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on A “snail mail” letter sent to Dr Brooks through Australia Post on 27 Jan. 2021