Doctor who gave terminal most cancers affected person ‘false hope’ is struck off

A Harley Street physician has been struck off after he was accused of trying to ‘exploit’ a dying patient into paying £33,000 to undergo an unlicensed cannabis-based treatment programme in the belief it might cure his terminal cancer.

Dr Julian Kenyon, 77, may have given the unnamed man ‘false hope’ after he recommended vitamins and cannabidiol – a prescription form of CBD – along with sound and light therapy.

Kenyon, who is medical director of a private surgery in Hampshire, told the patient: ‘You have had all the standard treatments, and you are running out of treatment options.’

The man, known only as Patient A, believed he had as little as six months to live.

He was informed by the Harley Street doctor the treatment would initially cost £13,000, but if it were unsuccessful, then further treatment would cost £20,000.

Dr Kenyon also told Patient A that he would need to have some blood tests which would cost £750.

Whilst telling the patient he could not be cured, Kenyon was said to have ‘bamboozled’ him with literature, insisting there was a ‘ten per cent chance’ of his stage four prostate cancer getting a ‘complete response, no tumour’ with the new treatment.

The patient, who was already undergoing conventional treatments on the NHS, was said to have felt ‘distressed and under pressure’ due to the cost of the private treatments.

After consulting his daughter who worked as a doctor, he decided against the treatment. He died 12 months later.

Married grandfather Kenyon, who ran the Dove Clinic in Twyford, Hampshire, was later reported to the General Medical Council.

The probe found Kenyon had previously been ordered to work for a year under a series of restrictions in 2014 after holding a similar consultation with another terminally ill patient at his London clinic.

During that meeting, which cost the patient £300, Kenyon offered him sound and light therapy for his late-stage cancer.

He said: ‘I am not claiming we can cure you, but there is a strong possibility that we would be able to increase your median survival time with the relatively low-risk approaches described here.’

Further inquiries revealed he had been given a warning for failing to provide good clinical care to a patient in 2013.

He had also been caught touting his controversial treatments to an undercover investigator from a Sunday newspaper.

At the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) in Manchester, a disciplinary panel accused Kenyon of profiteering from a ‘vulnerable man’ saying his conduct was ‘wholly unacceptable, morally culpable and disgraceful’.

The doctor declined to attend the sanction hearing saying: ‘Forget it. I won’t be turning up to this kangaroo court. 

‘It’s a complete waste of time and effort.’

His Twyford surgery closed last year, owing creditors almost £154,000.

The hearing was told Patient A had been diagnosed with stage four metastatic prostate cancer in December 2019 and was receiving conventional medical treatment through the NHS including chemotherapy and radiotherapy.

Patient A began looking at alternative medication and examined the possibility of undergoing Ozone treatment in Germany but went to see Kenyon in May 2022 on the advice of a close family friend who is also a doctor.

On the day of the meeting, Patient A attended the clinic with his wife plus the family friend who met privately with Kenyon for 15 minutes prior to the consultation.

Subsequently Kenyon recommended a treatment plan for Patient A that included the use of cannabidiol, the vitamin Claricell, and digestive enzyme Similase, as well as photodynamic therapy.

The hearing was told Dr Kenyon informed Patient A he had around six to nine months to live and advised him to start his treatment ‘sooner rather than later,’ as he ‘did not have much time.’

Patient A was said to have felt ‘slightly uncomfortable’ by the costs for blood tests and the treatment for prostate cancer, as well as ‘feeling under pressure.’ 

The family friend then said the blood tests would be carried out independently before Patient A paid Dr Kenyon’s consultation fee and left the clinic.

Later the same day, Kenyon sent an email to Patient A in which he set out the treatment options discussed and to which he attached research papers which related to the programme.

Patient A subsequently spoke to his daughter who then ‘Googled’ Kenyon and advised her father not to go ahead with the treatment.

Just a week later Kenyon contacted Patient A to ask ‘when he would like to commence treatment’ adding: ‘In Cancer Immunotherapies where the Cancer has spread, ten per cent get a complete response, no tumour, 40 per cent get increased survival, 50 per cent get no response. It is completely without side effects…’.

But the patient asked to think about it saying he was due to undergo kidney surgery at the time. He died in May last year.

A Consultant Oncologist, known as Dr E, told the hearing that Kenyon’s treatment programme was ‘inappropriate’, as Patient A had just started a type of hormone therapy called Enzalutamide and there had been no time to review whether it was working.

Dr E said Enzalutamide has ‘proven benefits’ in prostate cancer response and survival and there were other licenced conventional treatments available for him to try.

The expert said whilst photodynamic therapy was used to treat skin cancer, there was no evidence of it being effective for prostate cancer. 

He dismissed Kenyon’s claims as ‘unverifiable and extremely unlikely’ and added that his evidence was so poor ‘it in effect makes this a total fabrication.’ 

The Consultant Oncologist said the literature Kenyon sent to Patient A was ‘of no use.’

Dr E told the hearing: ‘Given Patient A had recently started a new conventional therapy, recommending an additional treatment with no proven efficacy would not serve his patient’s needs. 

‘The treatment plan could in no way be described as based on the best available evidence.

‘The evidence it was based upon would be considered of a poor quality and as such should not be used to recommend treatment outside of a clinical trial.’

In his evidence Dr Kenyon claimed Patient A had wanted to give up his existing treatments saying he was ‘totally wiped out with it’.

He said the efficacy of his own programme came from cancer immunotherapy literature and his review of results from the 500 patients he had treated at the Dove Clinic with photodynamic therapy over the past 20 years.

But counsel for the General Medical Council Amy Rollings said: ‘This was serious misconduct involving a terminally ill patient who turned to Dr Kenyon at a difficult time. 

‘Dr Kenyon’s conduct was poor and exploitative both during the consultation with Patient A and afterwards by his actions in his email communication with Patient A. 

‘His conduct during these proceedings is poor and he has shown no insight into his actions.’

MPTS chairman Mrs Aaminah Khan said: ‘Dr E’s evidence was clear, rational and persuasive.

‘He had considerable experience as a Consultant oncologist, having treated approximately 5,000 patients with prostate cancer over the course of his career.

‘The Tribunal accepted the view of Dr E that there were so few patients that were comparable with Patient A in the studies done by Dr Kenyon, that the quality of this research was poor.

‘Whilst Dr Kenyon gave evidence that he has treated cancer patients in his clinic for many years, he accepted that he has no experience in clinical oncology. 

‘His evidence on the issue of the treatment plan’s efficacy to be unpersuasive.

‘The treatment plan’s efficacy, as cited by Dr Kenyon to Patient A, was misleading and inconsistent with other advice given by Dr Kenyon. 

‘It referred to how “ten per cent get a complete response, no tumour” which would not appear to apply to Patient A, as Dr Kenyon’s evidence is that he had advised Patient A that the treatment was “non-curative”.

‘Furthermore, Dr Kenyon only gave Patient A articles, written by himself, which were supportive of the treatments recommended, when he accepted that there would likely be other contrary papers that disagreed with his view. 

‘Dr Kenyon overstated the efficacy of the treatment plan to Patient A.

‘In addition, Dr Kenyon gave inadequate advice to Patient A, which did not share information regarding the associated risks and uncertainties.

‘The literature Dr Kenyon sent to Patient A could have had the effect of ‘bamboozling’ Patient A into agreeing to have the treatment.

Mrs Khan added: ‘Furthermore, as Dr Kenyon was the Medical Director of the Dove Clinic, he had a financial interest in recommending the treatment plan, rather than referring Patient A back to conventional treatment available on the NHS, which appeared to affect the advice given.

‘During his oral evidence, Dr Kenyon did not accept any wrongdoing. He did not express any apology or regret for the treatment he provided to Patient A or to his family, for any distress they had suffered, nor express any sympathy for their loss. 

‘Patient A’s daughter said he was distressed following the consultation and felt pressured to undertake the expensive treatment Dr Kenyon was offering.

‘Dr Kenyon’s actions by overstating the efficacy of the recommended treatment plan may have given false hope to Patient A, who was terminally ill and vulnerable.’