A Harley Road physician has been sacked after he was accused of making an attempt to power a dying affected person to pay £33,000 for an unlicensed cannabis-based remedy programme as a result of he believed it might treatment his most cancers.
Dr Julian Kenyon, 77, might have given the unnamed man 'false hope' by prescribing sound and light-weight remedy, in addition to nutritional vitamins and cannabidiol.
Kenyon, medical director of a non-public surgical procedure in Hampshire, informed the affected person: 'You’ve got taken all the usual therapies, and now you haven’t any remedy choices left.'
The person, recognized solely as Affected person A, believed he had solely six months left to reside.
He was knowledgeable by the Harley Road physician The remedy will initially value £13,000, but when it fails additional remedy will value £20,000.
Dr Julian Kenyon (pictured) might have given the unnamed man 'false hope' when he prescribed nutritional vitamins and cannabidiol to deal with his late-stage most cancers.
Kenyon (pictured), medical director of a non-public surgical procedure in Hampshire, informed the affected person: 'You’ve got taken all the usual therapies, and now you haven’t any remedy choices left.'
Dr Kenyon additionally informed Affected person A that he would wish to have some blood assessments completed, which might value £750.
Kenyon “bluffed” the affected person with literature telling him {that a} treatment was not potential, and insisted that the brand new remedy had a “10 per cent likelihood” of “utterly curing his stage 4 prostate most cancers and leaving him with no tumours”.
It was reported that the affected person, who was already receiving standard remedy on the NHS, was left feeling 'distressed and underneath stress' attributable to the price of non-public remedy.
After consulting along with his daughter, who labored as a physician, he determined to not search remedy. He died 12 months later.
Married grandfather Kenyon, who ran the Dove Clinic in Twyford, Hampshire, was later reported to the Common Medical Council.
The investigation discovered that Kenyon had beforehand been ordered to work underneath a variety of restrictions for a 12 months in 2014 after conducting related consultations with one other significantly ailing affected person at his London clinic.
Throughout that assembly, which value the affected person £300, Kenyon provided him sound and light-weight remedy for his terminal most cancers.
He mentioned: 'I'm not claiming that we are able to treatment you, however there’s a sturdy chance that we can enhance your common survival time with the comparatively low-risk measures described right here.'
Additional enquiries revealed that in 2013 he had been warned for failing to offer good medical care to a affected person.
He was additionally caught selling his controversial therapies to an undercover investigator from a Sunday newspaper.
The disciplinary panel on the Manchester-based Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) accused Kenyon of profiteering from a “susceptible particular person”, saying his conduct was “utterly unacceptable, morally reprehensible and shameful”.
The physician refused to attend the sanctions listening to, saying: 'Overlook it. I cannot come to this kangaroo courtroom.'
'It is a full waste of effort and time.'
His Twyford surgical procedure closed final 12 months, owing nearly £154,000 to collectors.
Kenyon's Personal Surgical procedure is positioned in Twyford, Hampshire
The Twyford surgical procedure (pictured) closed final 12 months, owing nearly £154,000 to collectors
The listening to was informed Affected person A was identified with stage 4 metastatic prostate most cancers in December 2019 and was receiving standard medical remedy, together with chemotherapy and radiotherapy, by way of the NHS.
Affected person A started in search of various remedy and investigated the potential for present process ozone remedy in Germany, however visited Kenyon in Might 2022 on the recommendation of a detailed household pal, who can also be a physician.
On the day of the assembly, Affected person A arrived on the clinic along with his spouse and a household pal, who had met Kenyon privately for quarter-hour previous to the session.
Kenyon then really helpful a remedy plan for Affected person A that included the usage of cannabidiol, the vitamin Claricel, and the digestive enzyme Similase, in addition to photodynamic remedy.
The listening to was informed Dr Kenyon informed Affected person A he had about six to 9 months to reside and suggested him to start out remedy 'as quickly as potential' as he 'didn't have a lot time'.
Affected person A was reported to be feeling 'a bit uncomfortable' attributable to the price of blood assessments and prostate most cancers remedy, in addition to 'feeling underneath stress'.
The household pal then mentioned that the blood check can be completed independently, after which Affected person A would pay Dr. Kenyon's session payment and go away the clinic.
Later that day, Kenyon despatched Affected person A an e mail outlining the remedy choices he mentioned and attaching analysis papers associated to this system.
Affected person A then spoke to his daughter, who 'Googled' Kenyon and suggested her father to not endure the remedy.
Only a week later Kenyon contacted Affected person A to ask 'when he want to begin remedy', including: 'With most cancers immunotherapy the place the most cancers has unfold, ten per cent have full remission, no tumours, 40 per cent have an extended survival, 50 per cent haven’t any relapses. It’s utterly with none uncomfortable side effects…'.
However the affected person requested to consider it and mentioned that he was to endure kidney surgical procedure at the moment. He died in Might final 12 months.
A advisor oncologist referred to as Dr E informed the listening to that Kenyon's remedy programme was 'inappropriate' as a result of Affected person A had simply began a sort of hormone remedy referred to as enzalutamide and there had been no time to assessment whether or not the remedy was working.
Dr Ee mentioned enzalutamide had 'confirmed advantages' in prostate most cancers response and survival and there have been different licensed standard therapies out there for them.
The professional mentioned that though photodynamic remedy is used to deal with pores and skin most cancers, there isn’t a proof of its effectiveness for prostate most cancers.
He dismissed Kenyon's claims as 'unproven and intensely unlikely', saying his proof was so weak that 'it’s, actually, a whole fabrication.'
The advisor oncologist said that the literature despatched by Kenyon to Affected person A was 'of no use.'
Dr E mentioned through the listening to: 'As Affected person A had not too long ago began a brand new standard remedy, recommending further therapies with no confirmed efficacy wouldn’t meet his affected person's wants.
'The remedy plan can on no account be described as being based mostly on one of the best out there proof.
'The proof on which it’s based mostly can be thought of low high quality, so shouldn’t be used to suggest remedy exterior of a medical trial.'
Kenyon then really helpful a remedy plan for Affected person A that included the usage of cannabidiol (inventory picture)
A affected person present process photodynamic remedy (inventory picture)
In his proof Dr Kenyon claimed that Affected person A needed to cease his present remedy, saying he was 'completely bored with it.'
He mentioned the effectiveness of his program comes from a assessment of the most cancers immunotherapy literature and the outcomes of the five hundred sufferers he has handled on the Dove Clinic with photodynamic remedy over the previous 20 years.
However Common Medical Council lawyer Amy Rollings mentioned: 'This was critical misconduct involving a significantly ailing affected person who got here to Dr Kenyon at a tough time.
'Dr Kenyon's conduct was vile and exploitative attributable to his actions through the session with Affected person 'A' and in his subsequent e mail communications with Affected person 'A'.
'His conduct all through these proceedings has been poor and he has proven no perception into his actions.'
Mrs Aamina Khan, Chairperson of the MPTS, mentioned: 'Dr E's proof was clear, logical and persuasive.
'He had huge expertise as a advisor oncologist, having handled nearly 5,000 sufferers with prostate most cancers throughout his profession.
'The tribunal accepted Dr E's view that the research carried out by Dr Kenyon contained so few sufferers similar to Affected person A that the standard of the analysis was poor.
'Whereas Dr Kenyon gave proof that he had handled most cancers sufferers in his clinic for a variety of years, he admitted he had no expertise in medical oncology.
'His proof on the problem of the efficacy of the remedy plan is unreliable.
'The efficacy of the remedy plan suggested by Dr Kenyon to Affected person A was complicated and inconsistent with different recommendation given by Dr Kenyon.
'It describes how “ten per cent of sufferers obtain a whole remission, with no tumour”, which doesn’t apply to Affected person A, as a result of Dr Kenyon's proof is that he suggested Affected person A that the remedy was “non-curative”.
'As well as, Dr Kenyon solely gave Affected person A articles written by himself which had been in help of the really helpful therapies, regardless of acknowledging that there have been doubtless different opposite articles which might disagree along with his view.
'Dr Kenyon exaggerated the efficacy of the remedy plan to Affected person A.
'Moreover, Dr Kenyon offered insufficient recommendation to Affected person A, together with not sharing details about the related dangers and uncertainties.
'The literature that Dr Kenyon despatched to Affected person A might have helped persuade Affected person A to simply accept remedy.
In his proof Dr Kenyon (pictured) claimed affected person A needed to stop his present therapies, saying he was 'completely bored with it'
Mrs Khan mentioned: 'As well as, as Dr Kenyon was the medical director of the Dove Clinic he had a monetary curiosity in recommending a remedy plan, fairly than referring Affected person A for standard therapies out there on the NHS, which influenced the recommendation given.
'Throughout his oral proof, Dr Kenyon didn’t admit any wrongdoing. He provided no apology or remorse for the remedy he gave to Affected person A or her household, nor any misery triggered to them, nor any sympathy for his or her loss.
'Affected person A's daughter reported that he was upset following the session and felt pressured to endure the costly remedy being provided by Dr Kenyon.
'Exaggerating the efficacy of the remedy plan really helpful by Dr Kenyon might have given false hope to affected person A, who was significantly ailing and susceptible.'
