ussri.substack.com/p/lies-catfishing-and-colorectal-surgery

The article appears to merge two separate witness accounts from the MPTS determination.

In paragraph 25, the tribunal records Ms H’s evidence that Mr A came to her immediately after the incident and said he had "just gone to meet a man that he had spoken to on a dating site." The tribunal adds that Ms H said Mr A had come "straight to them" from the incident.

In paragraph 29, a different witness, Ms K, said Mr A told her that "a doctor dragged him into a toilet and assaulted him" and that he was scared nobody would believe him because he was young.

So the article’s claim that the first colleague he spoke to was the person who heard the "dragged him into a toilet and assaulted him" account is not what the tribunal record says. According to the determination, that account came from Ms K, while the first-immediate report described by Ms H was the dating-site version.

This sentence says there was no evidence Dr Stefan posed a threat to the general public. The MPTS determination says otherwise.

In its impairment decision, the tribunal found that Dr Stefan’s conduct created an ongoing risk of repetition. It then held that a finding of impairment was necessary "to protect, promote and maintain the health, safety and wellbeing of the public." On sanction, it concluded erasure was the only proportionate outcome capable of fulfilling "the need to protect the public." And when deciding whether the sanction should take effect immediately, the tribunal again held that an immediate order was necessary "to protect members of the public."

That does not mean the tribunal found him clinically incompetent as a surgeon; it did not. But it does mean the article is wrong to say there was no evidence he posed a public-protection threat. The tribunal expressly found a continuing risk and relied on public-protection grounds when deciding impairment, sanction, and the immediate order.