Although I would not have believed it, Jane Hansen has, it seems, fallen further below the required standards and ethics of journalism in her Sunday Telegraph offering: “Doctor sent a woman for two years of new age healing in a galaxy far, far away for a cough – costing her $35,000”. Jane Hansen appears to flout the standard for fair and balanced reporting completely and utterly. The article is deliberately framed to draw the reader to false conclusions, and make connections, that have absolutely no basis in fact.
This time Jane Hansen has so boldly and obviously given a story a particular slant that the bias is manifestly obvious. She even went to so far as to claim that Universal Medicine provided ‘no comment’ on the false claims that the organisation had been paid $35,000 for esoteric treatments for a woman with a ‘cough’. In regards to Jane Hansen’s latest offering in the Sunday Telegraph there was no comment sought from Universal Medicine on her various allegations and accusations. In this regard Jane Hansen has made a fundamental breach of journalism standards to present a fair and balanced view. This appears to have become Jane Hansen’s calling card.
In her first series of articles on Universal Medicine published in the Sunday Telegraph, Jane Hansen presented a biased concoction of lies from Esther Rockett, Lance Martin and Matthew Sutherland. She did not verify any of their tall tales and published outright lies, supporting, amongst many false accusations:
- Martin’s deluded claim that his marriage ended because of Universal Medicine; it did not, the marriage to Anna Douglass ended because he was domineering and controlling and refused to work on the issues in the marriage;
- Esther Rockett’s fabricated story of an ovarian reading that never happened and Esther Rockett’s imagined possibility of abuse that she thought might take place, but in fact never did.
- Outright lies from Matthew Sutherland about his own and his ex-partner’s involvement in Universal Medicine and the monies spent.
In this regard Jane Hansen abandoned her journalism code of ethics and conduct that requires fair and balanced reporting, since she had facts available that contradicted much of what she wrote. She presented whatever she chose irrespective of whether it was true or not, even going so far as to say that if a matter was not central to a story then she need not verify its accuracy.
I would hope that this attitude would set off alarm bells to the discerning reader. This woeful series of articles are currently the subject of numerous complaints to the Australian Press Council. Like this first series of articles, the conclusions that Jane Hansen’s latest story asks the reader to draw are based on lies and have absolutely no basis in facts.
Jane Hansen had approached her subject with a manifest bias that was evident from the line of questions with which she had approached Serge Benhayon and it did not take much digging into Jane Hansen’s past to find a history of behaviour with the subjects of her journalism that followed the same pattern. A pattern of having a particular angle to a story in mind and approaching her subject in a way that ensured that the facts produced would fit her pre-conceived approach, whatever the truth might be. In this regard, fair and balanced reporting took a back seat. The expose was published on this site: ‘Jane Hansen – A seasoned journalist with a murky past’.
In response to this expose on UM FACTS, Hansen went into overdrive on twitter claiming that the article was unfairly related to a very difficult time in her life in an apparent attempt to distract attention from the actual facts presented in the article.
She enlisted connections in the Pro-vaccination lobby (which was ironic given the article was clear that the author and Universal Medicine were strictly pro-vaccination) to launch a twitter campaign, claiming the article had unfairly and egregiously brought her ‘deceased child’ into the story. Her Pro-Vac lobby friends were naturally enraged by this imagined slur, however, we wonder if they actually read the article. Since Jane Hansen’s attack on this basis came slightly left of field, almost a bit Ayatollah Khomeini on Salman Rushdie – a fatwah proclaimed on something that everyone then believed was worthy of a fatwah when there may have been expedient political reasons for the fatwah that had nothing to do with the offence the book caused at all. In other words it was possibly a convenient distraction.
Not a bad plan, Jane. Distract others by making out the writers are monsters, garner support from enraged followers and conveniently draw attention away from what the article actually does – call poor journalism to account. To be clear the only mention of Jane Hansen’s sad loss are dealt with due compassion and respect, Alison Greig wrote:
What Jane Hansen sought to obscure by her attempted twitter war was the questioning of her integrity, relying upon her past tragedy to obscure the spotlight on her past career. What was really addressed in the article “Jane Hansen a seasoned journalist with a murky past” was the methods that Ms Hansen uses to make or manipulate the facts and manipulate questions to make a story. When we look at her most recent offering, ‘In a galaxy far, far away…’, her talent in this area has, it appears, become unsurpassed.
Apparently unconcerned that the unprofessionalism and outright deception contained in the former articles had been called to account, or perhaps because of it, Ms Hansen has ploughed on with this new article which takes standards of journalistic integrity to previously unplumbed depths.
It would appear Hansen has leveraged her position in the media to settle what she now has deemed to be a personal score, particularly as the story was so clearly intended to suggest that Universal Medicine received $35,000 for esoteric treatments, when no such money was ever paid to the organisation and Jane Hansen would have been well aware of this fact. Or if she were not aware, it would have been a simple matter to verify facts.
The latest article by Jane Hansen is just another chapter in her litany of lies she has published about Universal Medicine and a further blemish upon her already tarnished integrity.
The key points are that Hansen took the information provided by one Ms Ira McClure and has published a story falsely claiming that Ms McClure spent $35,000 on Universal Medicine services to find a cure for a trivial complaint, a simple cough. She apparently was led to spend this outrageous sum of money on Universal Medicine by her treating medical specialist. Although the newspaper article does not identify the medical specialist, Esther Rockett has paraded the identity of Dr Sam Kim, Pulmonary Lung Specialist, across her blogs, with the intent to do the most damage. Interestingly, it has exposed more than perhaps our serial hate-bloggers and vexatious complainants have bargained for.
Someone has told a lie – we do not know who decided to publish the lie that Universal Medicine was paid $35,000 for ‘new age’ treatments by Ira McClure. If Ira has misled everyone, then I am wondering if Jane Hansen is going to be well pleased when the truth is exposed? Or if Prof John Dwyer, who relied upon the false information in front of a parliamentary committee, will be thrilled at the lies and misrepresentations that Ira McClure has told. Since his retelling of the story is in effect misleading parliament. Ira McClure was aware that the information she had provided would be used by Professor Dwyer before the parliamentary hearing but did not seek to correct her fabrication that she had paid over $35,000 to Universal Medicine. She commented on the blogs:
“Professor John Dwyer from the Friends of Science in Medicine said he will be bringing Universal Medicine up at this Wednesday’s parliamentary hearing into the effectiveness of the Health Care Complaints Commission.”
We also know that Ira McClure has been a long-term participant on Esther Rockett’s blogs, posing as Feline Aphrodite, and has been active in trying to stir up people to make complaints about Universal Medicine, although curiously she has had no experience of the organisation. She has exposed herself as being the patient of Dr Sam Kim in many posts, and it takes little forensic analysis to match the characters up. In this regard it is interesting to note that Feline Aphrodite only ever appears to question Dr Kim’s relationship to Universal Medicine, not the quality of care that she received.
Since Ms Ira McClure never saw a Universal Medicine practitioner and had no connection with the organisation, she has only been able to take umbrage at what she has learnt about the organisation from the misinformation on the site of twice convicted felon Rick Ross and the vitriolic rubbish spewed forth by Esther Rockett and her cohort on Esther’s blogs. Ira McClure, writing as Feline Aphrodite, has declared that much she learnt about Universal Medicine has come from Esther’s tutelage:
We do not know if the way that the lies have been framed was all Ms McClure’s own work, she certainly expressed that a desired objective of the ‘exposure’ of Universal Medicine would be ‘criminal action’ and also she makes the following extra-ordinary plea:
“Please authorities deal with this evil pranic empire in a fiery way real soon. The authorities have reminded us again in view of the recent Boston bombings that if we see something to say something. The authorities are apparently regularly scouring the Internet for suspects. They will soon discover the SB UM empire and all its depravity – what more evidence do they need? Please may the press expose this disgraceful empire for what it is – evil and demented. ”
There was of course no ‘depravity’ except for the concocted lies that Esther Rockett had created. But Ira McClure appears to have adopted the rhetoric with a passion – often quoting Esther Rockett, or mentors off the Rick Ross forum to give her momentum. It has to be said ‘the authorities’ can see through the malicious lies and seemingly crazy allegations that have been presented by Esther Rockett, it seems odd that Ira McClure could not. But then Ira McClure’s comments are often more crazy than the material that she is accusing of being so, she makes the paranoid suggestion that:
And how has that been done Ms Ira McClure? I did not even know who you were, or really paid much attention to your existence until this latest news article full of lies and this more recent blog. Since there has been no court action, no injunction, how are you being ‘shut up’? As Serge Benhayon wrote to Jane Hansen:
‘… unlike many, I have the resources to sue Mr Martin and Ms Rockett for defamation. But why haven’t I? It is an easy victory given that they have no proof because there are no facts to their allegations. And with no assets or funds to pay for their crimes. When you have nothing to lose one can be as recklessly unaccountable as they please. Concocted lies do not convert to truths. Thus, what better way than to welcome with full transparency any complaint or investigation. Two years of vile accusations with no results. I ask you to consider if there is more at play here than you have been led to believe.’
There have been steady responses to numerous spurious complaints made to government authorities about Universal Medicine by Esther Rockett and Lance Martin, with each complaint being dismissed. However, Esther Rockett and her accomplices remain free to continue spreading lies, free to keep making baseless complaints. We have, after two years of observing Esther Rockett’s malicious and false claims made a stand to expose the lies and address the anonymous cyber-harassment on this site, but you are still free to spread your vitriol. However, your cloak of anonymity is broken.
It is equally possible that Jane Hansen has used Ira McClure in the same way she has abused her ‘talent’ in her previous stories. For example, in one story, Jane Hansen changed a young mother’s stance on vaccination from merely pro-choice (parents should be able to choose to immunise or not) to pro-vaccination (requiring all to immunise) to suit her own pro-vaccination ideals. She opted for the headline “Byron backlash as parents immunise…”. Her story was completely false, one individual re-considering immunisation was no ‘backlash’ and then as the young mother asserted, it was ‘a gross injustice to refer to it as such.’
Whoever is responsible for the fabrications, the most recent Jane Hansen Sunday Telegraph article “Doctor sent a woman for two years of new age healing in a galaxy far, far away for a cough – costing her $35,000” is deliberately framed to draw the reader into false conclusions, and make connections, that have absolutely no basis in fact, much like her ‘Byron backlash’ story, it appears that Hansen has derived facts and twisted them to suit an agenda.
Ira McClure paid $35,000 to Universal Medicine
Ms Ira McClure never paid Universal Medicine a cent
Ms Hansen infers that Ms Ira McClure spent a vast sum of money on therapies with Universal Medicine. Far from the imputations that Ms Hansen leads the reader to conclude, the patient Ms Ira McClure could not have spent $35,000 on ‘new age’ healing at Universal Medicine, since she never attended the Universal Medicine clinic or dealt with any practitioner there – at any time and they do not offer ‘New Age’ healing.
What is more Ms McClure never paid any money whatsoever to Universal Medicine, let alone the $35,000 referred to in the article. At $70 per one hour session, which is what most complementary therapists offering the esoteric modalities charge, that would amount to 5 sessions per week for almost two years, yet there is no record of even one session being booked by Ms McClure with any of Universal Medicine’s complementary therapists.
It appears from Esther Rockett’s latest blog there has been some back peddling, as her team go into damage control to support their new found ally Jane Hansen. Now they are saying, oh we meant that it was Dr Sam Kim who was paid the $35,000, not ‘esoteric practitioners’.
If that is the case then why the falsified headline and the framing of the story that the money was paid to Universal Medicine?
It was not.
They are now saying that Dr Samuel Kim, who is an extraordinary lung specialist, pioneering work in providing cutting edge treatments for asthma and emphysema as well as being renowned for his patient care, was the ‘Universal Medicine practitioner’ who got the $35,000 for ‘new age’ therapies. No doubt this accusation was a surprise for Dr Kim who provides high level specialist medical care to his patients. The recanting now suggest that Ms Ira McClure assumed that since Dr Kim is a tenant of premises that happen to be at the same location as the Universal Medicine clinic at Goonellabah and holds consultations there he could be a ‘Universal Medicine’ practitioner.
We can only take Ira McClure’s word that she was a patient of Dr Kim’s, and we do not know if Ms McClure saw Dr Kim in his premises that are attached to the Universal Medicine clinic or at his practice in Brisbane. However, if she did attend Dr Kim’s Goonellabah clinic then she would have entered Dr Kim’s practice through a doorway with a sign “Blue Hills Lung Centre – Pulmonary Physiology Laboratory & Clinic”.
So at least we know that Jane Hansen was, (shall we be kind?) ‘stretching the truth’ in her headline that clearly suggested the $35,000 went into the coffers of Universal Medicine.
So it was Dr Sam Kim who was supposedly paid this sum of money for his medical services, not for esoteric healing we imagine. We imagine then that what was paid for was specialist medical services. Could we inquire what the nature of those services were? Since Ira McClure refers to treatments ‘in excess of $35,087 with half out-of-pocket expenses’ we assume that she must have had hospital treatments, since an average specialist consultation fee is about $160.00 that would have required, well at 218 consultations in two years, more than 2 a week for every week, which is unlikely for any busy specialist. Thus we imagine there must have been tests, hospital admissions etc as part of that cost. Indeed, Ms McClure refers to a hospital admission in her blog comments as Feline Aphrodite, commenting on a visit from Dr Kim:
‘He visited me when I was in Hospital………….screwed his nose up at my food that was just delivered and said I do not eat ANY of that……………By the way it was a really tasty nutritious meal. Delicious. Shame on Him.’
It is a shame that rather than noticing the care of a doctor who is making a hospital visit, Ira McClure instead comments with contempt about what must be considered a common observation about hospital food.
It would be helpful for Ira McClure to bring an itemised account to the table since we cannot ask Sam Kim how much Ira paid for his services, nor can we find out what her out of pocket expenses were with respect to the treatment she received from Dr Sam Kim – but Ira would have all these details on her medical records – perhaps Ira would be so kind as to publish her Medicare records (and any private insurance she may have) with respect to these services or provide a verifiable account?
Of course she could give written permission for Dr Sam Kim to tell his side of the story – that would be worth hearing in the interests of fairness and balance.
Would a waiver of your right to privacy be forthcoming Ms McClure? We imagine not.
Ms Ira McClure was confused as to whom she paid money to and thought Dr Kim was a Universal Medicine practitioner
Ms Ira McClure was well aware that her medical specialist was a private consultant and not a Universal Medicine practitioner
It is pretty clear that Ira McClure has attempted to go along with the deception woven by Hansen, although Ira is not that great at deception – on the 2 September 2014, in relation to a discussion on Esther’s blog that no-one can really tell who a Universal Medicine practitioner is, in an attempt to suggest that referring to Universal Medicine being paid all that cash was really ok, because if the truth is stretched then Dr Sam Kim could really be regarded as the one who was the Universal Medicine practitioner getting all the cash. Feline Aphrodite states:
No Ira, you were not that confused, and the lie here is terribly unconvincing. Let us take you back to March 2013.
Ms McClure was under no illusion as to the distinction between her lung specialist and the very different complementary medicine practitioners who are part of the Universal Medicine clinic. On 18 March 2013, Ms Ira McClure, writing ‘anonymously’ as Feline Aphrodite, shared parts of an email on Esther Rockett’s Accountability blog that we now assume, given the exposure of the matter by Jane Hansen and Esther Rockett, were parts of an email alleged to have been sent to her by Dr Sam Kim, she affirms that it is ‘a direct copy/paste from an email that I received from my Medical Specialist on the 14 November 2012 after I had had an MRI.’ She goes on to say that she has ‘no words to express as to how I feel that a Specialist Medical Practitioner could sanction and refer His patients to Serge Benhayon and his UM organisation.’
So Ms McClure was not confused in March 2013 about her Medical Specialist being just that, and Universal Medicine practitioners being a different thing altogether. Indeed at that stage her complaint was being referred to Universal Medicine practitioners, not about being confused as to who was a Universal Medicine practitioner – there was no confusion. Thus Feline’s damp comment, like a soggy lettuce leaf, that she bets ‘that is what happened to the lady in the telegraph’ article is lame attempt to back her own story as it unravels.
Ira McClure, our Feline heroine, most likely attended the Blue Hills Pulmonary Lung Clinic that is housed in separate rooms on the Universal Medicine site, we cannot know; but Dr Kim’s clinic is clearly signed and has its own external entrance. With a separate entrance, clear information that he runs from premises called the Blue Hills Lung Centre – Lung Lab and Clinic, his business name Integrative Pulmonary Care & Medical P/L as his letterhead on all stationary,and the obvious separate entrance to the building as well as the convention that specialist medicos have rooms in hospitals and centres and are dealt with as independent from the organisation from which they work, there seems little room for confusion.
Jane Hansen has it appears never allowed herself to expose lies lest the truth gets in the way of a good story. It is likely that Ms Hansen intended to obscure who was paid money by Ms McClure – she intended to cloud the issue and pretend that Universal Medicine had been paid $35,000 for esoteric treatments, when she knew all along that Ms McClure had paid no such amount to Universal Medicine however, it is unknown if this amount, or anything like it was paid to Dr Sam Kim, but Jane Hansen is not one for verifying such details.
Ms Ira McClure was sent to see Dr Sam Kim for a mere cough
People are not generally referred to a pulmonary lung specialist for a ‘mere cough’
Feline Aphrodite, otherwise known as Ms Ira McClure, comments that confusion might occur, that is, Dr Sam Kim might be considered a ‘Universal Medicine practitioner’, if a person was ‘vulnerable and sick’.
We have to ask was Ira McClure ‘vulnerable and sick’ or merely suffering from a simple cough when she saw Dr Kim?
Most who are suffering from a mere cough do not describe themselves as suffering a particular ‘vulnerability’. Nor do they usually describe themselves as having their capacity for reason or good judgement impaired. Ira McClure contradicts her account with the admission she was ‘really sick’ when she consulted Dr Kim but later the problem has been translated to being a mere ‘cough’. Esther Rockett has also revised the story, now describing the woman portrayed as having a mere ‘cough’ when she sought treatment, as now having been ‘seriously ill’. No doubt this new angle serves a different agenda, and the occasional truth is merely convenient.
Universal Medicine is made to appear even more egregious as is Dr Sam Kim by the assertion, carefully manipulated by Hansen, that there was a vast sum spent failing to treat a mere cough, apparently ignoring the comment by Ms Ira McClure that she was ‘really sick’ at the time.
If we follow the account given by Ira McClure, her condition did not improve in the 2 years she was under Dr Kim’s exemplary care, and when she saw a subsequent specialist her condition of a minor cough rapidly improved with one treatment, we can only surmise that, if her story is correct, she was not so ill when she saw Dr Kim, so not impaired or particularly vulnerable.
Or was Ms McClure ‘really sick’ as she says and thus her condition improved under Dr Kim’s care. What is the truth? Was she really sick or not? Was the small matter of the cough her only medical concern when she consulted Dr Kim? This matter goes to the veracity of Ms McClure’s account.
In this regard, we have to ask why would Ms Ira McClure see a pulmonary lung specialist for a ‘mere cough’?
According to Jane Hansen’s email to Dr Sam Kim, Ms McClure has made complaints of being ‘misdiagnosed and over-treated’, Sam Kim is unable to comment upon this allegation, however, although I am no medical expert, my GP has never suggested I be referred to a pulmonary lung specialist for a mere cough. So there is something not quite right about this story – and there it is – a slightly important fact tucked away – Ms McClure says – “I was really sick at the time.” So which is it $35,000 for being really sick or a mere cough? Is it possible that she was really sick and her condition improved from treatment received? Is it possible she received appropriate medical care? We cannot know because Dr Kim cannot explain his side of the story. But I would like to know why Ms McClure was referred to a lung specialist for a mere cough in the first place and would like to know to whom the $35,000 was paid and for what services. It is possible it was not paid to Dr Kim either.
This is readily verifiable if Ira McClure provides her medical bills and information about her medical cover or if Ira McClure allows Dr Kim to provide information about his services and billing. Did you examine these details Ms Hanson?
Of course Ira McClure could give written permission for Dr Sam Kim to tell his side of the story – that would be worth hearing in the interests of fairness and balance. Would a waiver of your right to privacy be forthcoming about your treatment with Dr Sam Kim, Ms McClure?
Ms Ira McClure received esoteric treatments from Universal Medicine and was ripped off by them.
Ms Ira McClure never saw a Universal Medicine practitioner and could not have been exploited in the way described.
Ira McClure, writing as Feline Aphrodite, cannot help but express her admiration for what she refers to as Jane Hansen’s ‘journalistic talents’, and her own ‘courage’, on the 31 August 2014, she writes:
‘Jane Hansen, full credit for your journalistic talents. What a story.
UM’s little hidden traps are everywhere.
Jane and Esther your courage is respected as is the woman’s in this article. I hope that there are more articles. The more exposure of UM and affiliates the better Feline says.’
What a story indeed, Ira – it takes talent to manipulate alleged facts to make a story about something that never occurred – Esther, Jane and now yourself seem to take enormous pride in this vacuum of conscience. We are not sure what ‘talents’ you are referring to:
- Is it being able to publish a story knowing it is false?
- Is it publishing a story without checking verifiable facts?
- Is it the art of being able to imply wrongdoing where there is none?
- Is it being able to make your account sound credible, when it is utterly incredible?
And it has not passed our attention that you consider your own conduct ‘courageous’. Is it courageous to lie? It is not something that strikes me as particularly courageous. If your story were true, then that would be courageous. But on reflection it is courageous, although perhaps foolhardy, to publish lies woven into a story, since when those lies are exposed, it will take some courage to face daylight.
But what are the ‘hidden traps’ that are ‘everywhere’? Ira McClure (AKA Feline Aphrodite) has never had any experience of Universal Medicine to make this statement, yet she appears to believe whatever lies she has been told by Esther Rockett about the organisation. In this regard the ‘hidden trap’ was supposedly being mistaken that Dr Kim was a Universal Medicine therapist – in this regard Ira McClure was clearly not mistaken and there are no ‘hidden traps’.
We would also suggest that Jane Hansen was not mistaken either, but was fully apprised that Dr Kim was an independent specialist physician. In her email to him, seeking answers to questions that the dedicated physician would not ever answer because he would always honour patient confidentiality and privacy, Jane Hansen had asked about Dr Kim’s ‘involvement with Universal Medicine’ proceeding to refer to a previous patients ‘principal complaint’ that Dr Kim allegedly ‘referred her to several members of Universal Medicine’.
Esther Rockett claims that Universal Medicine has lied in response to allegations made
The only lies are those of Jane Hansen, Esther Rockett and Ira McClure
Esther Rockett and her cohorts have gone into hysterical overdrive accusing Universal Medicine of lying, for saying Ms Ira McClure did not spend $35,000 on esoteric treatments.
Well Universal Medicine did not lie – there was no $35,000 given to Universal Medicine for the provision of esoteric treatments.
Apparently they are standing by their ludicrous story, but appear not to have asked Ms Ira McClure for an account of which Universal Medicine practitioners she saw for esoteric treatments.
Ms Ira McClure refers to one massage for which she paid $70. We do not know where Ms McClure received this massage – perhaps Ms McClure can let everyone know? We are not sure who Ira McClure saw, but it was not anyone at the Universal Medicine clinic and as far as we know, she did not see any ‘Universal Medicine practitioners’.
In the email, allegedly from Dr Sam Kim, that Ira McClure pasted on the UMA site in March 2013, there is reference to Ms McClure seeing Neil Ringe – the post states that Dr Kim emailed: ‘Please bring that up with Neil Ringe when you see him.’ We assume that Feline Aphrodite did see Neil Ringe, since on a later post she comments:
If Ira McClure did see Neil Ringe, she would not have seen him at Universal Medicine’s Goonellabah clinic, he does not practise from there. Neil Ringe is a much sought after practitioner of Esoteric Chakra-Puncture who has provided services from his own home north of Byron Bay for many years. He has an extensive background in Chinese and Japanese acupuncture and had been a leading educator in the field for many years. He has a thriving practice that attests to his skill as a practitioner and is booked out six months in advance. It is unlikely Ms McClure spent $35,000 seeing Neil Ringe, as he charges a modest $60 a session and would most likely have only seen Ms McClure once a month, given his schedule.
We would really like to get to the bottom of who was paid $35,000 and what it was for. In previous articles Jane Hansen has been none to careful with her facts, particularly ones relating to money. And may we add that an obvious domestic money issue is not lost to us.
Jane Hansen variously reported Lance Martin’s ridiculous claim that his wife had spent $75,000 on Universal Medicine – and as his wife has commented, Lance simply pulled this figure out of the air, it bore no relationship to the truth whatsoever; she also reported Matthew Sutherland’s claim of an amount of $15,000 being spent on courses – this again has been refuted as ridiculous by his ex-partner, since they simply did not have the income to have allowed that expenditure and were given many courses for free when they wished to attend.
All these figures have been an attempt to smear Universal Medicine with the imputation that they are financially exploiting people, which is manifestly untrue – a session at the Universal Medicine clinic costs a mere $70 – in other locations the hour with a massage therapist or like practitioner is much, much more. But the bottom line is that Ira McClure never attended the Universal Medicine clinic for complementary therapies and the carefully manipulated story line in the article is intended to suggest that Ira McClure has been ripped off by paying $35,000 to Universal Medicine for bogus treatments is false.
Dr Sam Kim has breached confidentiality and privacy laws
Dr Sam Kim is an exemplary physician who has upheld privacy and confidentiality
Esther Rockett and her cohort’s hysterical overdrive have included a suggestion that Dr Sam Kim has breached his obligation of privacy and confidentiality in regard to Universal Medicine’s response to Jane Hansen’s false accusations.
Dr Sam Kim has not breached patient confidentiality and privacy.
We have gleaned what we can from the newspaper article and the various blog posts that have allowed information to slip through. Given Dr Sam Kim is the only specialist medical practitioner we know who treats lung conditions, and this condition is clearly identified in the Sunday Telegraph article, we assume that Ms McClure was referring to him. The recent blog posts by Esther Rockett confirm this reference. What is more Feline Aphrodite (Ira McClure) discusses her interactions on the blogs. Thankyou Esther, we always can rely on you for all the evidence we need. We approached Dr Sam Kim and he has provided Jane Hansen’s email she sent to him to us (with names redacted) and described her contact with him. We only can take Ira McClure’s word for the fact she was Dr Kim’s patient and of the treatment she received from Dr Kim, since Dr Sam Kim cannot confirm or deny that Ms Ira McClure was his patient, nor can he clarify whether what Ira McClure has alleged indeed occurred or did not. It is unfair, but it appears that Ms McClure can say whatever she likes without restraint, since Dr Kim, bound by the legal and ethical obligations of privacy and confidentiality can make no comment on the allegations made against him – unless Ira McClure were to release him from that obligation which she could do in the interests of fairness and transparency if those were values that she upheld.
Jane Hansen would be well aware that Dr Sam Kim could not disclose any matters about a patient, not even that a person was his patient, let alone the details of her medical treatment. This was a stitch up job – if he answered her phone calls or emails he would fall outside the conduct expected of a professional medical specialist, if he does not, Ms McClure can say what she likes and he can be accused of refusing to comment.
All we can go on is the material presented by Jane Hansen in her article and Esther Rockett in her blogs and Jane Hansen’s email contact – and if we read between the lies there is a glimmer of truth, not much, but a small shred – and that is where we have obtained our information.
Dr Sam Kim has not breached his legal duties, although we are sure that this was the intention behind the façade of asking him for comment. Jane Hansen called Dr Kim three times within a short period on his mobile whilst he was with patients, during his busy surgery hours, seemingly trying to engage him to do just that. He had hung up as he was with patients at the time; he had answered the call as she had called him on the mobile dedicated for patient emergencies, as it was not an emergency he hung up. Her email that followed her calls was clearly an attempt to compromise Dr Kim, since Jane Hansen posed questions about an alleged patient, that she must have known he could not answer because of privacy laws.
What we can suggest is that there was no confusion in Ms McClure’s mind that her treating specialist was not considered a Universal Medicine practitioner, that she was very aware that he was her treating physician, from whom we imagine she received medical care.
Ms McClure was wrongly treated by Universal Medicine and was wrongly diagnosed by Universal Medicine complementary practitioners
Ms McClure never saw a Universal Medicine practitioner; Universal Medicine practitioners do not diagnose medical conditions
The full misleading nature of the article became apparent from the fact that an obviously copycat article drew the inferences that Jane Hansen has obviously intended the reader to arrive at from her Sunday Telegraph manipulative concoction. Channel 9 repeated the story – with the title ‘Woman with cough billed $35K by ‘esoteric healers’’ – with the Channel 9 spokesperson stating that ‘Universal Medicine did not provide comment’ and since we know no comment was sought by Channel 9 from Universal Medicine, we can only surmise that the compiler of the story basically rehashed the same allegations and inferences of the original print article, thereby lending the original more credibility by repeating the claims. Whether a connection exists between these reporters is perhaps a matter for further investigation, as it appears that it is simply a plagiarised version of the original, containing no new information, actually making the inferences made by Ms Hansen into a more farcical account.
The Channel 9 report asserted that Ms McClure received medical diagnosis from Universal Medicine (including the ludicrous suggestion that Universal Medicine (‘the group’ ‘misdiagnosed her, mistakenly added her name to the lung transplant list, and prescribed her unnecessary chemotherapy drugs’).
Universal Medicine is a complementary therapy practice. It does not offer medical treatments or diagnosis, thus Ms McClure could not have received medical treatment or medical diagnosis from Universal Medicine practitioners. Equally, Universal Medicine and its practitioners did not mistakenly place Ira McClure on a ‘lung transplant list’ or wrongly prescribe chemotherapy drugs; this is patently impossible as Universal Medicine is not a medical practice. Even more odd was the claim that ‘patients of Universal Medicine’ could ‘claim back two thirds of their treatment through Medicare’. This also is completely false, since Universal Medicine has clients, not patients, and is not Medicare registered and cannot receive rebates.
It appears that Ms McClure is none to clear about the facts surrounding her treatment. Her statement that she has made a complaint to the HCCC about these matters against Universal Medicine is extraordinary, as the allegations that she raises simply did not occur.
Esther Rockett and her accomplices have now sought to argue that it was Dr Sam Kim who has ‘misdiagnosed’ Ira McClure, and ‘mistakenly added her name to the lung transplant list, and prescribed her unnecessary chemotherapy drugs’. We only have Ms McClure’s account in this regard and it appears grossly unfair to make such claims against a doctor who cannot answer these public claims.
Jane Hansen would have been well aware of privacy laws and the requirements of confidentiality, and known that a doctor could not provide information about a patient’s treatment, even when the story and a barrage of false and defamatory statements have been published about his care of a particular patient.
But we are sure that is what Jane Hansen was counting on – that Dr Sam Kim could not offer any comment on whatever story she concocted.
The allegations pose many questions that deserve answers so a fair and balanced account can be presented.
We have some questions for you Jane Hansen:
By Alison Greig BA LLB(Hons); LLM(Hons); Grad Dip Psych.
About Dr Samuel Kim
Dr Sam Kim is a dedicated and conscientious doctor providing the best of care for his patients. He has practiced medicine for 20 years and has been a Thoracic Physician since 2003, currently working at Integrative Pulmonary Care and Medical Pty Ltd in Brisbane. The Blue Hills Lung Centre in Lismore was purpose built in 2010 in order for Dr Sam Kim to offer state of the art care to the Northern Rivers area, combining a consulting room and lung function laboratory. It was built as a labour of love; the specialist equipment was self-funded, costing in excess of $100,000 with ongoing service costs. The facility is the only respiratory clinic in the region; patients would otherwise have to travel to the Gold Coast or Coffs Harbour for assessment.
Dr Sam Kim introduced Bronchial Thermoplasty to the eastern seaboard for severe asthma sufferers, the life changing results televised on Channel 9, with a patient attesting to the health benefits and freedom from many medications and oxygen. Dr Kim has also pioneered lung valve insertions to assist breathing for patients with emphysema.
As well as his exemplary professional approach to his work, he is very gentle and at times playful so as to help alleviate the stress and anxiety patients may be going through. He always takes care to explain illness/disease and treatment options so patients are fully informed. Dr Sam Kim is loved and respected by patients and peers who commonly refer to his enormous care and dedication. His service, dedication and professionalism is beyond compare.