Dr Andrew James Brooks – Sydney Urologist 18

As you can see, this is our 18th post on the Dr Brooks story – some might even suggest we’re obsessed with it, and perhaps we are. But, in the past, all we’ve ever talked about is claims by one of our readers that Brooks charged him $3,200 for less than an hour’s work to carry out on operation on him which didn’t work, which was never going to work, and which damaged him for life, it can’t be reversed.

And it’s only recently that it’s started to dawn on us that there may be an aspect to the story which is many times more serious, (why has it taken us so long? why have we been so dumb?) And that is that under the “reward system” that operates under the Berejiklian government, aided and abetted by Sue Dawson, the NSW Health Care Complaints Commissioner, Brooks is probably doing far better than two other Urologists we’ve since come to know about who come over to us as perhaps 2 of the 4 or 5 best doctors we’ve come across in more than 11 years. It raises the question, perhaps doctors are better off being crooks???

Our reader reports that, after his experience with Brooks, in a conversation with the GP, Dr Chris Grant, who’d referred him to Brooks, he said to him, “I think he, (Brooks,) is just trying to build up a nest egg for his retirement,” and that Grant’s response was just to laugh and say, “I would think he’d have lots of nest eggs already!” Was he suggesting he was filthy rich already?

And to complete the picture!

As we’ve mentioned, we’ve been contacted at various  times by 4 different people acting on behalf of Brooks, (including a Jack Wilson,) making threats against us for what we’ve been putting up on our blogs, and demanding apologies etc. etc., when all we’ve ever done is put up our reader’s side of the story, at the same time inviting Brooks to tell his side of the story – invitations he’s always  completely ignored. And that one of these 4  mentioned in passing that Brooks, from time to time, makes “contributions” to GPs to help them in running their practices, and that he described the making of such “contributions” as “a norm for the industry.” (We bet this bloke wishes, in hindsight, that he hadn’t mentioned this, and that Brooks certainly wishes he hadn’t mentioned it!) because, of course, most people would describe these “contributions” as “bribes.” And presumably these contributions would only be made to GPs who were referring patients to him – not to those who were not referring patients to him. When we emailed Grant asking him if he’d ever received one of Brook’s “contributions,” not only did he not respond, he blocked his email addresses so we can’t send him any more emails, and neither can our reader. Fortunately, we can pass a copy of this post on to him in another way.

So there you have it readers. Brooks, perhaps charging enormous fees to carry out operations which don’t work for patients and were never going to work, referred to him by GPs to whom he makes “contributions” from time to time, and building up lots and lots of nest eggs along the way. So is Brooks laughing all the way to the bank, as the old saying goes?

And, if so, does Premier Berejiklian care? Does Health Minister Hazzard care? Does Sue Dawson Care? Does Jack Wilson care? Do the people in the Urological Society of Australia and New Zealand care? – they’ve always told us in the past that Brooks is one of their highly respected members? Perhaps we’ll send out some emails to try and find out?

To make a comment, ask a question, or to join our mailing lists, email us at info@questionsmisc.info.

A 9 Jan. 2020 update: A copy of this post was sent today to the Urological Society of Australia and New Zealand. We’ll let you know if we get a reply. We’re not expecting one.

A 24 Jan. 2020 update: Nothing yet from the Urological Society – you can imagine that they wouldn’t be too concerned about one of their members laughing all the way to the bank.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *