This article was found on Intellihub.com, A.K.A. the “Civilian Intelligence Agency”.
Porton Down’s Legacy of Death: Inquest to Take Place Shortly Concerning Death of Scientist
by Janet Phelan
May 18, 2013
In April of 2012, Dr. Richard Holmes took a stroll in the woods in Wiltshire, England. His body was found two days later. Holmes is one of several Porton Down scientists who have died under questionable circumstances. The death in November 2001 of Vladimir Pasechnik was ruled to be a stroke, although co workers stated that Pasechnik was in good health. Vladimir Pasechnik was a Russian defector who first alerted the West to the extensive clandestine research into biological warfare taking place within the Soviet Union.
His death was, oddly, belatedly announced by Dr. Christopher Davis of Virginia. Davis was the member of British intelligence who de-briefed Dr. Pasechnik at the time of his defection. The announcement of Pasechnik’s death did not come in England until a month after he died. Interestingly, Pasechnik was also debriefed by a Dr. David Kelly, head of microbiology at Porton Down, which is England’s top secret chemical, biological and nuclear laboratory.
Dr. David Kelly, whose body was also found in the woods, had been invited to take the position of chief microbiologist at Porton Down in 1986.
Later, he worked extensively with Dr. Wouter Basson of South Africa’s clandestine Project Coast. Basson was known to be working on a “black’s only” bioweapon. When South Africa’s apartheid government fell, Basson was subsequently charged with an assortment of crimes, including murder. He skated on all the charges and is now a successful cardiologist in Durbanville, South Africa.
Another scientist who collaborated with Kelly and Basson, Dr. Larry Ford of Irvine, California died in 2001 of a shotgun blast that was ruled a suicide. Police found guns, ammunition and explosives when they dug up his yard. Cholera, botulinum, salmonella and typhoid were also located in vials in his refrigerator. All told, 266 bottles and vials of lethal toxins were found in the Ford home. The CIA declined to comment on Ford’s intelligence connections.
Dr. Kelly’s death in 2004—in the same woods that were to later claim the body of Dr. Richard Holmes—sent shock waves through the clandestine scientific community. Kelly reportedly died after slashing his wrists and consuming a cocktail of painkillers . His death was subsequently ruled a suicide.
However, according to the mainstream publication the Daily Mail, thirteen respected doctors declared that it was medically impossible f or Dr. Kelly to have died in this manner.
Andrew Gilligan, a reporter for BBC, claimed that Kelly had recently given him and other reporters information that proved the government had exaggerated the Iraqi danger in its “dossier” in order to justify the war against Iraq. Kelly was also reported to be writing a “tell-all” book.
The Daily Mail also reported that “at 8am, half an hour before Dr. Kelly’s body was discovered under the tree, three of ficers in dark suits f rom MI5′s Technical Assessment Unit were at his house. The computers and the hard-disk containing the 40,000 words of the explosive book were carried away. They have never been seen since. “
In 2004, Kelly’s replacement as the chief scientist for chemical and biological defence at the Ministry of Defence’s laboratory at Porton Down, Dr. Paul Norman, died when the plane he was piloting crashed near Devon.
The Wiltshire coroner’s office stated this week that Dr. Holmes’ coroner’s inquest will take place shortly. Dr. Holmes had recently left his employment at Porton Down before his fateful walk in the woods. It is unclear why he resigned. Within a month after leaving Porton Down, he was dead.
So… six days after chemical weapons were unleashed in Syria prompting world leaders to think about launching attacks on Assad the Prime Minister finally dragged himself away from the beach in Cornwall where he’s been enjoying his FOURTH holiday this year to do the job we pay him for. What was he waiting for? Did he hope the crisis would go away if he buried his head deep enough in the Cornish sand?
Sadly, ‘bucket and spade’ Dave doesn’t give the impression of a man dedicated to hard work despite being the leader of a party that claims to ‘be on the side of hard working people’. He has the most responsible job in the country, one that requires him to be ‘on call’ 24/7, and whilst this can obviously be pretty gruelling and hard on his family, the remuneration he gets more than reflects that. This isn’t the first time he’s been slow to return from holiday in a crisis.
He did the same back in August of 2011 when the London riots kicked off, claiming he could handle things just as well from his deckchair over the phone. He doesn’t seem to get it. He doesn’t seem to understand that when you’re Prime Minister of a country that’s suffering the pain of a dire economic recession you need to be there for your citizens; you need to show some solidarity with them and at least give the impression that you’re prepared to suffer alongside them. When you introduce the most stringent austerity package in recent history , claiming (falsely) there is no alternative because the country’s practically bankrupt and even the rich have to make sacrifices because ‘ we’re all in it together’ and when some of those who are worst affected by your actions go off the rails as a result, you don’t stay put on a foreign beach and order another cold lager – you get your pampered arse back to Downing Street right away and you bloody well deal with it.
Lots of other professions require being ‘on call’ round the clock yet pay nowhere near as much as the PM’s salary. My father was a detective sergeant and we hardly saw him. Many’s the time we’d be sitting down to Christmas dinner on what should have been his day off, and the phone would ring and off he’d have to go. It goes with the job, you get used to it. Junior doctors work a ridiculously punitive schedule for a fraction of the wages Cameron takes home. And don’t get me started on the injustice of zero hours contracts…
Truth is Cameron hasn’t got what it takes to be a serious statesman. Back in 2008 Obama called him an intellectual ‘lightweight’, a criticism also echoed by Rupert Murdoch more recently. He got away with this in opposition because the job really only required him to be a PR man, a man who projected the image of modern conservatism that the party wanted to sell a gullible public; a public long conditioned to look no deeper than the surface, the packaging. So someone wrote his speeches, he delivered them and did the photo opportunities, selling the party ideology. He hugged hoodies and huskies, rode his bike (followed by his chauffeur driven car for when the cameras had buggered off) went for the odd fun run and learnt the manifesto off by heart so he could blindly repeat bits of it when asked questions. He hosted a few country suppers and wined and dined and arse-licked Murdoch and potential rich party donors; then every three months or so he jetted off to a posh beach somewhere to ‘chillaxe’. He was, and still is, a mannequin with a mouth through which the Tories broadcast their empty sound-bites, a vacuous, expensively suited cipher of so-called ‘caring conservatism’.
Three years on, the stark truth of what that oxymoronic slogan actually means is literally embodied by the public who’ve lived with its pernicious consequences – as it is by a Prime Minister who’s cold-bloodedly imposed it with aloof indifference to any responsibility for the damage he’s caused.
Whilst the PM’s body has grown fat and brown on his many holidays from inconvenient duty so the bodies of his citizens are being reshaped by the malnourishment he’s decreed for the likes of them. Diseases once eradicated by social policies that improved diets and damp and squalid housing conditions are returning to Britain with a vengeance at a time when the NHS that could alleviate them is being ruthlessly dismantled to puff up the profits of the Prime Minister’s cronies. Diseases such as scurvy and rickets which deform bodies are back with us. Asthma and other respiratory illnesses exacerbated by damp and mouldy houses are on the rise. And Cameron’s ‘caring conservatives’ who will never suffer this fate, and know it, don’t give a monkeys.
His holiday photographs, which he no doubt thinks of as photo opportunities, that sell him as a ’family man’ devoted to his wife and kids, when put into perspective and contrasted with the lives of the families he’s destroying, instead bear witness to the truth of Cameron’s upper class essence: a weak,egotistical wealthy man who likes the lifestyle of the idle rich.
Cameron is a man who is either totally oblivious to the irony of his throw away words when he said his wife had an ‘unconventional’ childhood because she went to a day school – or is totally dismissive of the millions to whom he owes a duty of care and for whom this is the norm, because we are of no consequence in his world except as ‘human resources’ judged merely by our use value and thus can be discarded like used tissues when we’re all used up.
Cameron is a millionaire who claimed DLA for his disabled son because , like Tesco and all good capitalists he knows that ‘every little helps’ in the ‘global race’ for bigger profits in which the real effort is never theirs and the real risks are borne by those with least to lose.
Cameron is a vain, elitist man who secretly believes that hard work is something that the servants should do. whilst, purely in the interests of political expediency, publicly pretending to ‘care’ about a class of people he really thinks of as nothing better than livestock.
And sadly, he is the man we call ‘Prime Minister’.
On 20th August this year Dr Greg Wood, the former naval doctor who resigned from his post as an Atos disability assessor and subsequently became a whistleblower by going to the press to expose the cruelty of the Work Capability Assessments, published the following article in the British Medical Journal (BMJ):-
I blew the whistle on the government’s disability assessments
Greg Wood former naval doctor and Atos disability analyst.
Greg Wood went to the media with concerns about the ethics surrounding tests for fitness to work—and eligibility for benefits—that the UK government outsourced to Atos
Actually, two whistleblowers went public before me, and several other doctors have raised concerns anonymously. I am a former general practitioner in the Royal Navy, where work related
assessments are bread and butter stuff. The UK Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) devised the work capability assessment (WCA) to judge whether people who receive out of
work sickness benefits could, in fact, cope with most forms of work. A more stringent test came into use in 2011, and the government made no secret of the fact that it hoped this would boost the labour market, improve people’s self esteem and personal income, and, of course, reduce government debt.
For many years the information technology and “business process outsourcing” company Atos has had a contract, now worth £100m (€116m; $155.4m) a year, to carry out several
social security benefit assessments, including the WCA, for the Department for Work and Pensions. In my view this risks tension between doctors’ professional concerns on the one hand and business imperatives on the other.
The WCA had a troubled childhood. From early on, claimants and disability groups were reporting problems. They felt the assessment was a box ticking process, where medical assessors spent most of their time punching superfluous lifestyle data into the computer. And the likely outcome as they saw it? Computer says no. In fact, the test, on paper at least, isn’t too bad, though it isn’t going to win anyone a Nobel prize. But it cannot adequately
take into account health conditions that fluctuate unpredictably, and it tries to include too broad a range of jobs. Driving, call handling, shelf stacking, data entry, and cleaning, for example, are all theoretically covered. And although the test is nominally a pre-employment medical test of sorts, it is really still about measuring the person’s level of disability.
In early 2013 the WCA was still causing a rumpus in public, despite a series of external reviews.
One problem that dawned on me over time was the widespread use of five ill conceived so called rules of thumb that were promulgated during the training of new assessors. On one,
manual dexterity, the guidance was just plain wrong. The training said that this all boiled down to an inability to press a button, whereas the regulations allow points to be awarded when there are difficulties forming a pinch grip, holding a pen, or operating a computer. The other “rules of thumb” showed a combination of discrepancies and questionable interpretations of medical knowledge—for example, moving from one room to another at home was supposed to be equivalent to moving 200 metres. The effect was to reduce a claimant’s likelihood of entitlement to financial help. Another concern was the absence of documentary evidence, which, in my experience, occurred in about a fifth of assessments. This was a simple failure to move important pieces of paper from one building to another but the assessment was expected to go ahead regardless. And my third concern was that there was an implicit assumption that the most likely outcome of an individual face to face
assessment was that the person would be found fit for work. Ihave no reason to believe that this was deliberate; it was probably more a question of wishful thinking and a misunderstanding of basic statistical principles. You can’t expect the proportions of claimants who are fit to work who are seen by an individual doctor to correspond to national trends. The general culture was one where, at the point when their file was
being opened for the first time by the assessor, it was broadly assumed that an individual claimant was more likely than not to be found fit for work.
My fourth concern was that Atos auditors, for quality assurance purposes, were in the habit of demanding that healthcare professionals change their reports without seeing the patients themselves. This seemed fairly reasonable if the amendment could be justified, but not so reasonable when the doctor who had seen the patient thought otherwise. For instance, auditors supposed that they could tell that a patient with a chronic and only part treated psychotic illness had adequate mental focus, despite not assessing the patient for themselves, and using solely a report.
The position of the General Medical Council is that doctors should not alter such reports if they think that it would make a report less accurate, or would render it misleading to the body commissioning it—that is, the DWP. I resigned from Atos primarily over this widespread interference with reports, which I felt encroached on my professional autonomy and crossed ethical boundaries. So I blew the whistle and found myself talking to
parliamentarians and journalists, and then making an appearance on BBC news. It was nerve wracking trying to choose my words carefully while keeping the message clear and simple. Obviously I worried about the repercussions, but what had tipped it for me was that the DWP had stonewalled on this for more than two years; medical knowledge was being twisted; misery was being heaped on people with real disabilities; and the cost to the
taxpayer of these flawed assessments and the subsequent successful tribunal appeals was going up and up. Three months after I blew the whistle, the DWP announced that all Atos assessors were to be retrained and that external auditors had been called in to improve the quality of the WCA. To others considering blowing the whistle, I would say this: if
it is important enough to you and you do not believe that the problem can be fixed by more conventional means; if you can back up your assertions with evidence; if you are prepared to risk alienating your colleagues; and if you are robust enough to deal with the slings and arrows that might come your way; then blow your whistle loud and blow it proud.
Competing interests: I have read and understood the BMJ Group policy on declaration of interests and have no relevant interests to declare. Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.
© BMJ Publishing Group Ltd 2013
Yesterday, 24th August, the BMJ published another article by GP Dr Glyn Phillips, written in response to Dr Woods’ piece. Dr Phillips helps claimants who are going to a Tribunal to appeal against the outcomes of their WCA and fully supports Dr Woods. Here’s what he had to say:-
Re: I blew the whistle on the government’s disability assessments
Glyn Phillips, GP
Greenhills Medical Practice, Greenhills Health Centre, East Kilbride,
24 August 2013
Dr Wood deserves to be thanked for his publicising of what lies behind the seemingly dark and at times Kafkaesque outcomes of Atos WCAs. Over the past few years I (and many others) have seen a growing number of patients becoming victims of mind-boggingly cruel and unfair assessments which have led to stoppage of their ESA payments.
How can a patient with a quite profound depressive illness somehow manage to score zero points at an Atos WCA but 27 in a PHQ-9 assessment in the same week? In their defence they would cite that they do not actually make that final decision, it is made by an adjudication officer, a clerical worker, back at the DWP. Thus they can sanitise their tainted and increasingly cruel and unfair judgements. Atos and the DWP seem to deny the existence of a target driven culture. However, their methods and tactics cannot be explained by any other logical reason.
In 1996 I spent 6 months doing two sessions per week with the then Benefits Advisory Medical Service. The assessment tool was the All Work Test, not totally dissimilar to the WCA. Available to assessors were two exclusion clauses for those occasions where a ‘client’ clearly would not achieve the magic score of descriptor points to retain their benefit but equally clearly was not fit for work. This facility remains present in the WCA assessment. This option to apply exceptions, without restriction from management, was what allowed latitude for commonsense, experience, empathy and compassion.
The recent marked increase in grossly unfair decisions by Atos/DWP is, in my view, solely due into the fact that doctors and nurses performing the assessments have had those four safety valve qualities blocked in an over-bearing and bullying fashion by their employer Atos. The DWP, as the commissioning public body, carries equal responsibility for this.
Atos employed doctors and nurses (especially those in managerial roles) should be examining their consciences in these matters. They should be reminded that the decision will be based largely, if not entirely, on their assessment. They are answerable to their governing body. They are also answerable to their ‘client’ who is our patient and therefore answerable to us. When they see somebody who has not scored enough descriptor points, but who they must know is not fit, it is their duty to apply an exception clause. It is their duty not only to our patient but also to their governing body.
This past year I have been involved with supporting appeals for increasing numbers of patients who have had their ESA stopped. One example is a significantly unwell man with complex multiple medical conditions including SLE and ‘shrinking lung syndrome’. He walks very slowly with difficulty and is significantly short of breath after just a few metres. I am convinced that a child would have come up with a more appropriate decision regarding his fitness.
Working with a like-minded local lawyer our success rate is currently 100%. There are more to come. This is a frustrating waste of time for me as it is so unnecessary. What is more frustrating is the total lack of transparency following such a successful appeal. The appeal is successful, the ESA is restored but there appears to be no other outcome. No acknowledgement of accountability on the part of Atos or its employee. The misery and extra unwelcome stress put upon our patient seem not to matter. Apologies do not exist. The tremendous waste of public money expended in dealing with the dramatic increase in levels of appeals is a disgrace.
Making unwell patients more unwell is a disgrace too
Competing interests: None declared
With the recent disturbing news that GPs are being urged by professional bodies to refuse to provide benefit claimants with the medical evidence they desperately need for their WCAs whilst the DWP and Atos refuse to do the job themselves, leaving disabled people in an impossible position, its good to read stories like these by doctors who put their principles and humanity before anything else.
We desperately need more health professionals who are or who have previously worked for Atos to come forward and speak out and put the powerful weight of their professions behind the people being criminally treated by Atos with the approval of their own government.
Thanks to the Child Poverty Act 2010 – legislation brought in by the last Labour government – the Coalition is legally committed to working towards meeting targets for eradicating child poverty in Britain by 2020. Given their current performance this has now become a tragic joke. Nonetheless, it is a statutory duty and we should do all we can to hold them accountable for it.
The Act sets the ‘poverty line’ at an income that is 60% or less than the average net household income, adjusted for inflation. The Act also defines persistent poverty to be having an income that is 60% or less than the average for three consecutive years after 5th April 2010. The target is for there to be 5% or less of children living in families with such an income by 2020.
According to the latest available figures for 2010/11, when housing costs are included there were 13 million families in Britain living beneath the poverty line. This was before the full impact of welfare reform began to bite. That figure is now likely to have shot up sharply as an inevitable result of benefit cuts , rising rents and food prices.
However, the Child Poverty Act contains clauses that allow the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions the freedom to alter the targets for poverty reduction by redefining the legal meaning of persistent poverty. He can do this provided he does so before 2015 and, more importantly, provided he has the consent of the Children’s Commissioner.
In effect, before the next election, Iain Duncan Smith has the power to redefine the ‘poverty line’ in Britain so long as he can persuade or browbeat the Children’s Commissioner into agreeing with him.
Back in June of last year Mr Duncan Smith provoked a row by suggesting he was going to do just that although he was vague about the detail and made no mention of his statutory duty to secure the consent of the Children’s Commissioner. The Independent reported that:-
“Mr Duncan Smith announced plans to scrap the way poverty has been defined since the 1970s – below 60 per cent of the median income. He argued that it would be better to tackle poverty “at source” and to take account of other factors such as drug addiction, worklessness, welfare dependency, debt and family breakdown.”
Then in November 2012 IDS announced he was launching a consultation exercise to look into how poverty could better be defined other than just by income. This consultation closed on 15th February this year. Based on the Tory’s ideological view of poverty as mainly the result of ‘chaotic’ lifestyle the government proposed that there should be eight dimensions of poverty measurement but it seems the academics and organisations taking part in the consultation almost without exception disagreed with their proposals, saying it would be conceptually impossible to devise a credible measurement tool to accurately measure child poverty based on the categories suggested by IDS .
More significantly for the Secretary of State though is the response of the Children’s Commissioner whose report was based on a consultation with children themselves and stated in no uncertain terms that for them poverty meant having little money and living in bad housing. It would seem that the consent he needs to proceed with his plans is unlikely to be forthcoming.
So far as I can discover, six months on the government have not yet published the outcome of this consultation. But as the election creeps closer and as the devastating impact of their welfare reforms bites deeper and deeper, its not hard to imagine that the government will be desperate to do all they can to portray their performance in the best possible light. Given how central to their deficit reduction platform welfare cuts have been its vitally important to them to be able to claim that child poverty has reduced and that if any still exists its not their fault.
IDS needs another cunning plan.
The current Children’s Commissioner. who stands in his way, is Dr Maggie Atkinson who was appointed in 2009 by Ed Balls from her position as director of children’s services at Gateshead council which she’d held since 2005.
Last November Dr Atkinson came in for some highly unusual criticism regarding another report she produced about the sexual exploitation of children by predatory gangs of men. According to one news report:-
“An unnamed government source is widely reported to have questioned the report’s methodology and calls some of the language used in it “hysterical”. That highly unusual intervention prompted an exchange today in the House of Commons at Prime Minister’s question time.”
In response to that question David Cameron said a strange thing, considering that the contentious report had already been published in full:-
“We need to give every encouragement to the Children’s Commissioner to make sure that the final version of the report is produced.”
Is Cameron implying that the government would be putting pressure on Dr Atkinson to alter her report? Is this why a link to the ‘FULL REPORT’ published online here in November doesn’t work? Is that why the report published on the Commission website is now entitled ‘INTERIM REPORT’ ?
And doesn’t it seem strange that there is also a version of the report published on the same Commission website in JULY 2012 with the odd title of ‘ACCELERATED REPORT FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EDUCATION’?
What could the difference be between an ‘accelerated report’ and an ‘interim’ one? Its not possible to examine the version posted as ‘FINAL’ because the link doesn’t work but the version now calling itself ‘INTERIM’ looks awfully like a complete, fully referenced report to me whereas the so-called ‘ACCELERATED’ version has the look of an interim report produced for briefing purposes.
My instincts tell me there’s something fishy about all these versions and I’m inclined to think that Dr Atkinson and her team have been told in no uncertain terms to doctor their research to suit the government’s agenda. In other words pressure has been applied and it looks like she has given in to it.
I’m not concerned here with delving into the details of this particular report and the possible objections that might have been made which led to the apparent correction of the ‘hysterical’ content. That will only be possible when the final (doctored?) version appears and comparisons can be made.
What was the nature of the pressure put on Dr Atkinson to alter a research report to suit the government’s sensibilities? And if she can be made to bend to such pressure once, will she be equally obedient if put under similar pressure from our Fuhrer-like Secretary of State for Work and Pensions should he decide to persist with his plan to change the legal definition of poverty in order to be able to deny the misery he’s brought to millions of children and possibly even claim it no longer exists?
Or will the Children’s Commission suffer the same fate as the CQC where reputations were very publicly destroyed forcing resignations followed by the politically convenient appointment of Tory-friendly Board members and a Chief Executive who was once a Tory MP?
There have recently been a number of reports in local newspapers up and down the country of sick or disabled people being taken ill while attending Job Centres. Given the fact that the Work Capability Assessment is seriously flawed and some very seriously and even terminally ill people are being passed as ‘fit for work’ and being forced to attend Job Centres under threat of losing benefits, this is a budding trend that could potentially become an every day occurrence.
Job Centre staff have already been given training in dealing with suicidal claimants, a tacit admission by the DWP that its policies are having a devastating effect on many people’s mental health. Is it now time for staff in Job Centres to be trained in basic life support and resuscitation techniques and for all Job Centres to be equipped with defibrillators, to deal with the growing likelihood that very sick claimants could need urgent medical attention whilst under their roof?
If you think this sounds ludicrous consider the following news reports. For instance back in March of this year an ambulance was called to a Job Centre in Grays, Hertfordshire when a man collapsed. By the time the paramedics arrived, despite attempts to resuscitate him, the man had died. Had the staff been properly trained in basic CPR its possible his life could have been saved.
In July this year an ambulance was called to a Scunthorpe Job Centre when a man complained of chest pains. He was later diagnosed as having had a panic attack which when severe enough can give rise to chest pain, pallor and a feeling of shortness of breath – symptoms very like those of a heart attack and just as unpleasant. Had staff been trained in First Aid techniques,whilst they may not have been able to accurately diagnose his problem they would at least have felt more confident in supporting him and calming him down until the paramedics arrived.
The following story which is reproduced in full below was published in yesterday’s Watford Observer and highlights the absolute madness of Iain Duncan Smith’s assault on the chronically sick. I leave you to draw your own conclusions.
Disabled man suffers ‘mini stroke’ during Watford Job Centre interview
James has to endure unexplained episodes – thought by some doctors to be transient ischaemic attacks (TIAs), or ‘mini strokes’ – which leave him temporarily paralysed.
A brain damaged disabled man who regularly suffers seizures thought to be possibly ‘mini strokes’ was struck down by one – midway through a Watford Job Centre interview, geared towards getting him back into work.
James Laver, 46, has to endure unexplained episodes – thought by some doctors to be transient ischaemic attacks (TIAs), or ‘mini strokes’ – which leave him temporarily paralysed.
Despite the fact his GP said he is ‘completely unable to work at present’, Mr Laver was still called into the Job Centre, in Exchange Road, on Tuesday afternoon for an appointment as he had been placed into the Work Related Activity Group (WRAG), which is aimed at ‘preparing him for work in the future’.
Since having a full stroke in 2008, in which he suffered minor brain damage and nerve damage to his left side, Mr Laver has suffered seizures which paralyse him for an hour and cause him to feel dizzy and to slur his speech.
The exact nature and cause of the seizures have divided opinion among doctors, with some believing they are TIAs, which are caused by a temporary disruption in the blood supply to part of the brain resulting in a lack of oxygen to it.
This can cause symptoms similar to those of a stroke, such as speech and visual disturbance and numbness or weakness in the arms and legs.
However, a TIA does not last as long as a stroke. The effects only last for a few minutes and are usually fully resolved within 24 hours.
Nevertheless, Mr Laver has still been classed as someone who can prepare to go back to work and attended a Job Centre interview on Tuesday.
Mr Laver, who claims disability living allowance, said: “I was put on the floor and was swallowing my tongue, and began to choke. I managed to get myself into the recovery position, but staff then put me back on my back. I quite possibly could have died.
“The attacks are getting worse and are becoming more frequent. Whenever I’m in A&E I’m told it’s a TIA, or possibly a TIA, or not a TIA or stroke, or possibly epilepsy. I think it’s a TIA.
“When I visited my partner in Australia two years ago I was having fits and the Royal Melbourne Hospital said they were TIAs.
“I’ve had five attacks this week in the space of a few days. Nobody this week has told me what they were.
“The woman in the Job Centre was mainly going on about why was I there when I was obviously not fit to work.
“She was just reading stuff on the screen, saying they couldn’t overturn the decision made that I should be in a WRAG.”
An Atos Healthcare spokeswoman said: “We were able to advise Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) that Mr Laver was not fit for work without the need for a face-to-face assessment.
“DWP makes all benefit decisions and has found that he should continue to receive sickness benefit.”
Regarding Mr Laver’s seizure at the Job Centre this week, ambulance service spokesman Gary Sanderson said: “We were called at 2.19pm and we conveyed a male to Watford General Hospital for further assessments.”
When asked what the nature of the illness, Mr Sanderson added: “We cannot comment on that as it is unknown.”