An Unexplained Pathology Report

To the Office of the Inspector General Hotline of the U.S. DOJ:

A word about the pathology report included below.

This report was ordered by Dr. Judith Nevitt and sent to the Stanford Hillview Laboratory.  As Dr. Nevitt has ties to Stanford Health Care, it is unusual that her name is omitted with the statement "Ordered by Referring Provider Unknown."

Stanford Pathologist Christina Kong read this culture, even though she is not on staff at Stanford's Hillview Laboratory.  Her participation in this reading is unexplained.

Dr. Judith Nevitt claimed that she ordered full culture and sensitivities from Hillview Lab.

Yet, inexplicably, sensitivities were not run on this extremely rare and resistant cause of human ocular infection.

When I called the Lab directly, personnel told me that the specimen had been thrown away "earlier than usual."

My pathologist contacts have explained to me that, for a pathologist to correctly identify this ocular pathogen as Corynebacterium bovis, but to fail to run sensitivities and recommend treatment based on those sensitivities is well outside the bounds of the standard of care.

Dr. Judith Nevitt's office inexplicably called me to inform me of the culture results, but wrongly stated that "no treatment is necessary," even going so far as to tell me that Corynebacterium bovis was a "normal variant" of human bacteria.

From my perspective, this infection was -- and still is -- causing me significant eye pain.  So, I was suspicious of the "nothing needs to be done" narrative.

I looked up Corynebacterium bovis online and was astonished to find the truth:  that this represents an exceedingly rare cause of human ocular infection and that it is highly difficult to treat.

It seems to me that both Dr. Nevitt and Dr. Kong were attempting to cover up the surgeon's malfeasance, and further, that they were doing so at the instruction of a third party.

I believe that third party to be the FBI.

It would further be illuminating to ascertain whether Dr. Christina Kong and/or Hillview Laboratory were at any time in receipt of a Corynebacterium bovis sample from another laboratory, likely a veterinary or agricultural laboratory, given that it is a bovine pathogen.

I have medical records from Judith Nevitt's office, if the OIG Hotline requires them.  Dr. Nevitt may have engaged in falsifications of her internal record, as the surgeon apparently did, in an effort to conceal wrongdoing.

I hope these details may assist.

Most sincerely,

Lane MacWilliams