The Nigerian Medical Association (NMA), Delta State Branch, has issued a formal clarification distancing itself from a histology report currently circulating online and allegedly linked to an individual identified as Blessing Okoro, also known as “Blessing CEO,” warning that the document may have been misrepresented and is being used to mislead the public.
In an official communication dated April 1, 2026, the association disclosed that its attention had been drawn to the report, which was purportedly issued by Xinus Medical Diagnostics and allegedly signed by a consultant pathologist. The document, widely shared across digital platforms, had sparked public interest and controversy, prompting the NMA to intervene with what it described as necessary clarifications to prevent misinformation.
According to the association, the proprietor of Xinus Medical Diagnostics, Dr. O.A. Odigwe, who is also a member of the NMA Delta State Chapter, reached out to the body to present a detailed account aimed at correcting what was described as a false narrative surrounding the report.
The NMA stated that contrary to claims circulating online, Xinus Medical Diagnostics is located in Asaba, Delta State, and not in Enugu State as alleged. More importantly, the facility denied ever issuing any histology report to Blessing Okoro at any point in time, directly contradicting the attribution being made in the viral document.
Further clarification revealed that the medical facility had, in May 2025, been contacted by a doctor from a private hospital in Asaba to conduct a confirmatory test on a suspected case of breast cancer involving a patient identified as Mbara Deborah. The association noted that the test was duly carried out, and the result was formally issued to the referring doctor on May 9, 2025, confirming a case of breast cancer.
The NMA explained that the report currently in circulation is, in fact, a copy of that original result but associated with the patient Mbara Deborah, not Blessing Okoro. It added that the document was reportedly circulated online by a law firm, Allen Juris Law, with the correct patient details intact.
The association expressed concern that the version being publicly paraded appears to have been altered in a manner that misrepresents its origin and ownership, raising serious ethical and legal questions about the handling and dissemination of sensitive medical information.
Describing the situation as troubling, the NMA emphasized that the clarification became necessary in light of how the altered report is being used, warning that such actions could mislead unsuspecting members of the public and undermine trust in medical institutions.
The body further stressed the importance of protecting the integrity of the medical profession, stating that its reputation and that of its members should not be taken for granted. It called on relevant authorities responsible for maintaining law and order to take appropriate action to prevent exploitation of the public through the misuse of medical documents.
As the controversy continues to unfold, the NMA’s statement underscores broader concerns about misinformation, professional integrity, and the potential consequences of manipulating sensitive health records in the public domain.
Discussion about this post