#275 - Kangaroo Courts and Medical Injustice: The Fight of Dr My Le Trinh

It's the same with me. I've never had a complaint made against me in 20 years, 30 years of my practice. And all of a sudden, I had two complaints on the same day, just hours apart. Why? You know, if the Health Care Complaints Commission is so smart with their investigation, that in a self speaks volume. They should look into the validity of both of those complaints.

And that's all I'm asking. I'm asking, hey, if someone complained about me, fine. I'm ready to face questioning or that, but not with a falsified complaint. I can't deal with that. That's just so wrong to go after me based on a falsified complaint.

Yeah, I think so. I think that they can target any specific doctor they want. They just make up the complaint and the health regulators, even though the complaint's dodgy, they still investigate because they are complicit in the act. They're all complicit. It's all law fair. Judiciary and legal process and due process and regulations have now been weaponized to punish dissenting doctors.

Correct. They specifically target. If they want to get rid of you, they can get rid of you. We were talking about Wendy.

Wendy Selin, Roto, and Miley. Wendy Selin is a lady who spoke today about the estrogen, too much estrogen in everything, in scented oils, essential oils, in food, in water. And it's causing breast cancer, it's causing menopausal issues, it's causing the feminization of boys, it's causing infertility, it's a freaking nightmare. I agree, she's quite intense. And I think the reason, one of the reasons why she's intense is

She learned under her mentor this doctor who's passed away and now she's the only person who is banging on about this topic.

And she's been canceled and censored. She's given podcast interviews and they've not published it. So she was, she was almost thought I wasn't going to publish it. And because she says, like, there's no one talking about this issue. And she's been going on about it for 18 years. And I'm not 18 years. Yeah, you kind of go crazy. Like, just everybody. Well, the most shocking fact was that in America, the eight year olds becoming pubescent, that is really frightening.

It's happening. It's happening and it's terrifying. Anyway, let's talk about Miley. Miley, both of you, it's amazing that you're both friends. Rorro, fantastic for supporting Miley in our recent court case. She's amazing. She is. Miley, I don't know what I do without her. Well, we could friend simply, Miley. Yes.

Well, I've come to the realization that actually there are a few good lawyers. I just came back from the funeral of Anna Dubiserat. Anna Dubiserat died of cancer in the 30th November. She was one of those rare lawyers who's who's speaking up for the truth, speaking against the COVID mandates that, you know, the problems of informed consent. I was actually a very moving ceremony. Her three children were up on the, you know,

And they were all individually, they all gave a tribute. I had tears in my eyes. People were sobbing and crying. She was an incredible woman, mother. Anyway, it was fantastic. But listen, let's talk about my lead. Let's jump in your side first. So Billy Bay's just won his court case. It's been amazing. It's fantastic. Around about the same time, you were in court. Now, tell us all about what it was like. And then Rosaro can fill in the gaps and tell her from the gallery what it felt like as well.

Tell me, Miley. So being based on news came out on the Friday.

the 13th, I went to court from the Monday to the Thursday. So this is my, what I call, prosecution proceeding. So the Health Care Complaints Commission took me to court to prosecute me. And the basis of that was really about a patient that I've treated, that I, whose life I've saved, and also about a bunch of other making patients that I've treated.

that they seek the medical files for and the treatment and prescribing of I've made of a few of my family members. So that was what I went to the proceeding for. So they wanted to make a finding that I'm practicing significantly below standard.

for treating this lady under an exceptional circumstance. So this is a lady who was diagnosed with COVID-19 while she was in hospital. They didn't treat her, they isolated, made a wear mask and prevented her family members to visit her.

And after about a couple of days, she knew that they weren't doing anything for her. So she decided to discharge herself against medical advice and went home and continue to deteriorate over a number of days. And when they contacted me that she was very unwell with saturations in the mid to low seven, well,

Initially in a high 80s and then her saturation dropped significantly to the low 70s on the same day and I told her that she's too unwell for me to treat. But she wouldn't go to the hospital. She said that she rather died home so that she could be with her children rather than dying in the hospital. And so that's the circumstances that I treated this lady and

She... Molly, we've already covered this in the last podcast. I hate to interrupt you. We've had lots of conversations since then about the caucus. I want you to talk about...

what the lawyers and the shenanigans and what the reality of it is like being prosecuted. I'm sorry. I just wanted to go back into the zone that you are when you're on the phone with me. You know, when you're ranting free flow and you're just letting it rip, just drop the facade of the interview. Forget that. We've done that podcast. We've gone through the case. I know all about it. People have heard it. But you know, when you're on the phone with me, one to one and you are just letting it rip and my life's coming.

I want to see that. I want to see that, Miley. I'm sorry to interrupt you, but we've seen this. We've done that. I don't want to spend another hour going through all of that. I want the real Miley to come out now and tell me what these fucking assholes are doing to you in court. Just get on with it and just be brutal and raw. That's as well. I want everyone to hear. So what are they up to in court? They, um, they put up, um,

an expert witness against me and that expert witness was against Ivermectin and he's saying that Ivermectin was not an effective drug for treatment of COVID-19. But on the first day, the judge was

seem to be fairly impartial. And he asked the expert witness whether I've saved the patient's life. So this man who's against, you know, who's supposed to be against me admitted that I saved the patient's life. And that's, that's, yeah. So that didn't come from my lawyer because I asked my lawyer, can you ask him whether I saved the patient's life?

Because that's the most critical question, right? Whether my treatment was effective and made a difference. And he admitted to the judge that I saved the woman's life. The other critical thing on the first day was that the judge commented that the guidelines, so I was accused of not following the National Task Force guidelines. Because the guidelines say that I shouldn't do anything for the

patient, I shouldn't treat the patient at all. I should wait until they turn blue and then go to the hospital and be intubated. That's what the guidelines say. So you can't use zinc, you can't use hydropsy, you can't use vitamin D button, see nothing, you don't do anything at all. You just give them penor, wait until they turn blue and then go to the hospital.

Why, why are the people who came up with these guidelines not behind the dock and answering for why they're recommending such a dangerous treatment, you know, protocol? I mean, this is bullshit. This is complete inversion. So the guidelines are completely ridiculous and dangerous. Why are these people who came up with it not behind the dock? So you're not actually in a proper court. You're still in this tribunal, aren't you? You're in the Kangaroo court.

So we need to clarify that. Two, go back to that expert, the Ivermectin expert. Why is he an expert on Ivermectin? Why would he be the expert witness? Because when you're an expert witness, it means that you've got a speciality and experience in that field. So for example, if there's a car crash, someone breaks their ankle and someone says, this doctor didn't fix my ankle properly. They'll get me then to be the expert witness because I fix ankles and I can comment on it.

So when it came to your Ivermectin, who was this expert witness and what was the expertise? Well, we don't consider he's an expert because he's just a GP. All right. OK. And why was why was that GP the expert witness? Because he's been an expert witness for the Health Care Complaints Commission for about 14 years. OK. Does he get paid to be an expert witness? Yes, he does. Does he get paid per day?

or whatever. I don't know per day or or not, but maybe per hour and maybe per project. Like, OK, but they're getting remunerated. They're getting paid money to provide evidence on behalf of the tribunal for the tribunal. And since the tribe. No, we have the health care complaints commission.

Same thing, healthcare complaints commission. But basically, if they're going to be looking for work from the healthcare complaints commission, they'll always be siding for the healthcare complaints commission. So an expert witness is normally meant to be impartial. So the way it works in the UK is an expert witness is drawn independently

Four and you're never the same person working for the GMC or working for you just go out and get an expert witness. So the fact that they've got a GP who's on their on their role on their payroll and for 14 years. I mean it doesn't suggest to me that much of an expert me suggesting me it's just a paid person who's going to parrot whatever the health tribunal commission whatever wants them to say.

Correct. Am I right? Right. Listen, I don't want to be teasing this out of you. I want you to throw it at me like you do in the phone calls, OK? Well, he not only is he an expert witness for the Healthcare Complaints Commission for that number of years, he's also for a period of time was the tribunal member, what they call professional tribunal member for four years with overlapping role over that period.

Okay. Well, that makes it even more incestuous. This is just ridiculous. So this idea of having fairness and impartiality in this person is just an expert providing evidence to the court. That's what you're meant to do. Actually, no, they're kind of they're working in the enemy camp. This person is a paid agent effectively. All right. Okay. Fine. I'm glad we clarified that. That's definitely tick one kangaroo court. So what was the second point you were coming to about the

So he, he's also a tribunal member. He's been a tribunal member for about four years. And in that four years, he was doing both, he was serving both roles. He was an expert witness for the healthcare complaints commission and a tribunal member during the same period. So, so basically he was the judge and he's the expert witness.

It's just ridiculous. These kind of doctors, I really don't like, you know, they're like almost like a snitch. They're snitching on the other doctors. Yeah, they take pleasure in taking other doctors down. And I think a big element of is that the power trip, I've got the power, right? You know, I'm a good doctor. Look at me. I'm on this panel. I'm getting paid. I'm an expert. You know, I know what I'm talking about. And I bet you they're not even a good clinician. Anyway, move on. Let's go on. So what's the next point? So he admitted that I saved the patient's life.

So my point is, if I save the patients life, why is a healthcare commission pursuing me and prosecuting me? To prosecute someone, they have to have evidence that I have not practiced or that I've practiced dangerously, that I'm putting lives at risk. Number one, secondly, they have to have some kind of evidence to say that my clinical practice

is a threat to the public. That's the only reason that the healthcare complaints commission can prosecute someone. So there had to be evidence of some sort that I'm a danger to the public safety and public health. And did they provide any evidence?

No, they want me to, I don't know, they have nothing against me. I'm sorry to keep going over this. And your phone calls, you're just like one thing after another. I want you to get back into that zone. So you were there for four days. Talk about how they obstructed. Talk about how they made it difficult for your expert witnesses. Talk about how they delayed it. You're giving me all this. You pause for a second, Miley.

Right? And think about all the stuff that you normally term in the phone. Maybe it's too early in the morning. Rosie, tell me, what was it like in the doc listening and watching? Adversarial, they were awful. And those two women in the front, their faces were honestly, I've never seen such evil looking faces as those two people in the front who were both GPs. They were rude, they were ignorant, and they were nasty. Anyway, there was my lie.

It's not just me. Miley has a huge following here. We absolutely love her to be pieces. She should be Australian of the year. Here's this beautiful, gorgeous woman who came out here on a boat. She learned to English. She put herself through school. She put herself through medicine. And she's the most conscientious of people. She has admirers for every walk of life here now. We were so upset in court. They reduced her tears because they were vicious.

Anyway, we in the gallery behave quite badly. The judge kept ticking us off and saying, you'll be sent out. And of course, there were some very funny moments when

when one of these hideous GPs in the front, below sitting below where the judge was, said, why did we follow government guidelines? And my lease said, well, I trust my own judgment. And this doctor said, oh, I'd never do that. Honestly, we couldn't stop laughing. It was hilarious. And there were some months, but most of all, we were enraged at how she was treated.

And there were quite a few of us who were there every day with Miley. She has got huge support here. It's just so outrageous to see someone of her caliber being treated like this. It's humiliating, isn't it? And degrading. And when you say adversarial and they brought her to tears, what do you mean by that? Can you explain that? Miley?

You can explain. Well, they catch hammering at her. It seemed that the main thing was they were trying to make my leaves say, oh, I knew more than those people in the ICU, which obviously she did, because they were idiots, going to give the patient six milligrams of what they call prednisone.

When in fact, it had that by that time being clarified by FLCC. Correct me if I'm wrong because I'm not medical. FLCC made it clear they needed a big whack of this stuff and it wasn't really. I mean, since all this case now become so interested in it,

Other people have told me that their partners at different times have needed a large amount of print design. So it's not like this is completely out of left field. But obviously, perhaps I'm jumping ahead, and I do say if I'm stealing your thunder, my Lee, but when Pierre Corey came on, it confirmed that everything my Lee had done was just perfect. We could hardly contain our joy, honestly.

And of course, he upset the judge because he waved goodbye to Pierre. We're always just about cheering at this point. And confirmed that everything my Lee had done had been perfect. And had she not done that, the woman would have died. And the judge, of course, absolutely hated all that. But anyway, look, I hope I haven't told you. Nothing has done a great job in this one. No, no, no, no, no. Ro, Ro, Ro, you're doing a great job. You're actually, this is great. This is what we wanted, right? We want more information, basically.

So listen, so going back to the judge, the judge should be impartial and so when you're nodding your head, why'd you say no, they're not impartial?

Well, his entire delivery was at the sale, wasn't it, Miley? Yes, he was horrible. And as for those two women in the front, honestly, we couldn't believe how outrageous it was the way they treated it. So these two women, are they on the other side of APRA or the Health Complaints Commission? Are they lawyers as well as GPs? What are they? Who are they?

So on the panel, there's a judge. So it's got to be a legal person. And then there's two health professionals, and they usually GP. So there were two GPs, and then the fourth person is the lay person. So that's the panel that's judging me. So they had to listen to the case. They're only supposed to clarify issues. They're not meant to interrogate me.

They're not. That's not their role. That's the role of the prosecution. You said to me on the phone that they were like fishing. They're looking for things to trip you up. Expands on that.

So obviously the role of the purpose of this hearing is for them to identify issues that are done wrong and they want the oral testimony from me. So it's a role of the prosecutor to find evidence that they have and then clarify and get me to admit things that they want me to clarify or to admit.

The role of the tribunal members to oversee that proceeding to clarify or to make sure that I conduct myself properly and the other side is conducting this themselves properly. And if there's anything that needs clarification, then they do that.

Now, it's not their role to assist the prosecutor, to interrogate me, to draw information from me, or to force me to produce, to say things that I don't want to say. And that was what they were doing. They were pressing me. At one stage, the judge was raising his voice at me. He's not meant to do that. He's meant to be a neutral, impartial person.

I want to just picture this in my head because I'm a bit confused. There's you, the defence. Was there a prosecution team? Yes. And who was who was who made up the prosecution team?

So the healthcare complaints commission hire a barrister and they have their two lawyers with them. Okay, so you're on the left side of the court? Are you on the left side of the court? If you're looking at the court, we're on the right side. No, from behind on the gallery, if you're behind. On the gallery, I'm on the left, we're on the left. Yeah, so you're exactly. So you're on the left.

And on the right is the prosecution with a barrister and two lawyers. And then at the top, there's a judge and the panel, a panel of 2G. And so it's not just a judge that is judging you, it's the panel. Yes. Four people. So they should be neutral, those two medical doctors and whoever else.

They should be completely neutral and listening to the evidence from the prosecution and the evidence from you. Right, Miley, stop one second. Rorro, did it seem like the judge and the panel and the two doctors were being impartial? Or did they seem to be, tell me, what was it like? They were insulting. And at one point, when Miley asked for the question to be said again, the judge was so rude. He said, something like, can you please listen carefully so I don't have to repeat myself?

I mean, you remember that when he said that to you? And also with some of the expert witnesses that Miley had, she had the most illustrious of people from our freedom movement speaking on her behalf. They were so rude. I could not believe it. One of these odious, disgusting GPs in the front there called Dr. Philip Altman, who is the most well-informed, wonderful person who has been speaking out and doing his superb

substex ever since the moment he realized this was so wrong. She said, you're a conspiracy theorist, you must believe in unicorns. It was breathtakingly wounded. Oh, wow, you're a conspiracy to use human. That doesn't sound like an impartial panel. No, they weren't. And honestly, from the gallery's point of view, we were in a boiling rage at the end of virtually every

every moment, because everything we knew to be true, these people had absolutely no idea. And when that guy Alan Glanville got up and they said, well, have you ever treated anyone with COVID? No, no, my expertise is in transplants, organ transport. I mean, this guy was completely clueless.

At every turn, Miley was shown to be right, but would they give up? They had that entrenched view, which all of us who are aware of what's happening. All of us are so frustrated. It's like dealing with the person who's diabolically ill with something is clearly a result of a vaccine injury.

And they just completely can't see that it is. That was what the entire experience was like. These people had sold it into their brains, that the vaccine was safe and effective, that the ICU had all the answers, that the government was on their side, and the people in the task force had some kind of divine right to rule that everyone should listen to regardless of the outcome. That was pretty much how it came across.

bloody hell. Right. Listen, listen, very, very quickly. I'm going to get back to you, Rodo, and I want you to talk about some of the expert witnesses that came in. Miley, I want to ask you about Billy B, right? Billy Big Balls B. He said on the podcast with me that doctors, tribunals are where doctors go to die, literally.

Do you regret going to the tribunal and fighting at the tribunal? Because to me, what I said to Billy Bayes, Billy Big Balls Bayes, is that it's like going into a boxing ring with both your hands tied behind your back and a blindfold put on and then told go, go fight this.

300 pound massive, you know, six foot tall sack of meat. It's just not fair. It's just not fair. It's bullshit. Why did you get into that ring? And do you now look back and think, oh shit, yeah, this is not going to work out. It's unfair. It's stacked against me. Has your experience changed your view? Or do you still have hope?

Okay, I haven't shared this before and because it's Christmas, I thought I'd share something that's related to my faith. So I'm a Christian and I mean, I believe that my whole journey associated with this suspension and everything, it was God using me in this very, you know, very

difficult situation, and it wasn't by chance. When they initiated this prosecution hearing against me, it's been a while. So this started in August of 2023. And my understanding is that the reason why this was initiated against me, it was because they didn't want me to go to the court of appeal.

because I have done a judicial review like Billy Bay. I did a judicial review before the tribunal and then my case was before the Court of Appeal ready to be heard. Now when I was, I will've talked about this before, when I was there I had a second matter which I wanted to challenge and the

The judge wanted me to go back to the tribunal because the law requires me to do that. So I did that, but however, they withheld my judgment so that I can't go to court of appeal because if the judgment's ready, then I can have my case hurt. So the reason why is that if I were to win my case, I would be able to put a stock to this unlawful indefinite suspensions of all health practitioners in the state.

because the court of appeal is the highest court in the state of New South Wales. They didn't want me to go there. So they initiated this prosecution proceeding so that they could cancel my license. And then when I get to the court of appeal, I wouldn't have standing. And then my case was over. So that was the background of how this prosecution hearing

started. Now, I didn't have legal representation at the time, so I handled the proceeding on my own, the preliminary proceeding. And I was in a state of mind to self-represent and to fight this case. I got medical certificate to have the matter adjourned. And in March, April of this year, they pushed me to a hearing. Even though I had a valid medical certificate,

They wouldn't take, they wouldn't consider, I mean, I had a medical certificate for another three, four months and they wouldn't accept it. They just pushed me, but that means that they ignored the medical certificate and they insisted that I go to a hearing. So that was in April.

Yeah, March, April, that I had to handle this while I was sick, while I was being treated and sick and at a facility. I was doing a course, but also it's a treatment facility for PTSD. And so they

They scheduled a hearing date in mid-July for three days. And I then decided to reach out to my medical insurance indemnity. And so they appointed a large legal firm and a barrister. And that barrister was of my choosing. So I was happy with that. But after working with the insurance company's lawyer for about a month,

I realized that everything they did was to undermine my case. So they told me that I was not. I didn't need to defend myself on the issue of Iva Mectin. They initially lied to insurance company that I didn't have any expert witness to support me. And then when I did, they refused to serve my expert witness.

And time was running out. So two weeks before I was sure to have the hearing, I had no evidence. There was no evidence being submitted to the tribunal. I had no expert witnesses, even though these people were on a sideline for weeks waiting to be served. So I sacked them.

You know, I thought I thought I would be better without a legal team. And I had a friend who was apparently good to help me. So we decided that the only option was to self-represent and I was ready to do that.

The next, the very next day, a very good friend of mine called me up and said, she, she said, this is from God, and that you are to immediately contact your lawyer, your lawyer that helped you with the code of a pill case.

I said to her, okay, I was very quick to agree with her because I really trusted her. So I rang up and contacted my lawyer and she said to me, this is the last day that you could put in an application or to request for an adjournment.

I said, what? So she did that. She stayed back at work on a Friday night to put in a publication. And then Monday, when the HPC found out they went crazy. They were blowing up. I mean, I could see like, you know, so they were so upset. And we then had to, you know, this is God delivering me from

I'm just a bit, I'm a bit thick and it's late at night. So I just want to like clarify. So you try to take these people to the, you know, Supreme Court, right? Your highest court court of appeal outside the tribunal, outside the Kangaroo court. And you want to argue to the real court in the real justice system that this is all nonsense. And I shouldn't have to go through this. And that judge said, no, you need to go back to your court, your tribunal and argue it out with them.

Am I right? Not quite. Just explain in really simple language. Yes. So when you bring an issue to the judicial review, that matter progressed. So I did have that matter progressed from the tribunal to the court of appeal, ready to be heard. But when I got to the court of appeal, there was this, there was a second matter that I decided to challenge. So that was the matter concerning delegation of power.

Miley, you have to explain in simple language. What was the matter, the first matter that you're taking to the court of appeal? What was that matter? And then secondly, what does it mean delegation of power? Just keep it really simple. Avoid legal terminology. So what were you taking to the court of appeal? What was matter number one? What were you arguing? This isn't fair. And what was number two? This isn't fair.

Okay, so judicial review is really reviewing the law, basically. Basically, I'm saying, hey, picture will see medical council, you have not, you have not acted according to law. And this is the law that I like the court to review on. So the law, unfortunately, not like Queensland, unlike Queensland, where Billy Bay is in New South Wales, you have to go to tribunal first.

on your judicial review before you can get into the real court, because the legislation in New South Wales states that. So, the first matter I took to the court for judicial review was the matter that

required the healthcare complaints commission and the medical council to refer me to the tribunal. So when you are suspended, when a doctor or health practitioner is suspended, you need to have some kind of process of proceeding where that matter gets discussed and get decided on by a neutral body, like the tribunal. You can't just get the measure. Suppose it's supposed to be neutral.

Yes, supposedly neutral. And that's all we were asking. And the law clearly states that, that if a matter is significant, if it's serious, well, if you suspended someone that complained it, that issue is serious. So, so the law said that they must refer us, they must refer us to a hearing and, and that they had to do so within a reasonable time. They can't drag it on for years and years on end and

Because that is a punishment. They want to punish us with the process. Okay, so I've got that. So matter one is they've suspended you. You don't know how long the suspension is going to last. You don't know what the issue is. There's no hearing set. There's no time set. All you know is you can't work. You can't earn a living. You're suspended.

So you go to the court of judicial review saying, hey, this isn't fair. They've just suspended me. I'm in limbo. I don't know how long this process is going to last. Well, but while I'm suspended, I'm being punished in effect. They should get on with it and tell me what I've done wrong and decide on the matter, not just leave it for a year, two years, three years. So that was matter number one. Yes.

Okay, what's matter number two? Imagine number two came about because of this proceeding. We asked the, my lawyer, my legal team asked the medical council, did you have the power to suspend her?

Because we want to see that delegation of power, because these people only have power, the power can only come from the law. And also, in order to have that vested power in them, they have to follow the steps. So these people have to be assigned accordingly

and they have to do so according to law. So when we got to the Court of Appeal, we have a document from the Hidden Medical Council showing us that they have not followed the law.

that the way they delegated the power to the tribunal, to the medical council members, so those people that suspended me when I was at the Section 150 hearing, they have not had that power delegated according to law, which means that my suspension was unlawful. Okay, so why didn't the judge just rule in your favor and say this?

No, we have to demonstrate that. We have to be able to argue that. Now, the second matter, the judge said, well, this matter hasn't been brought to the tribunal. So you've got to go back to do the second matter before the tribunal, before you can have it hurt at the court of appeal.

It's insane. It's just, it's just this legal technicality, BS, law fair bullshit. The matter of hand is, are you dangerous? Did you harm anyone? No. Did you save someone? Yes. What's the goddamn issue? Why are you suspended? Why are you being dragged through the mud? What's all this bullshit about? It's just nonsense.

I hear all this legal gobbledygook technical. Yes, so we could easily have that matter argued in the court of appeal, but they refused to let us do that. So we were told that if we were to argue this second matter, we have to have an application before the tribunal and we're going to start the same process as the other one again.

So the tribunal, all it has to do was to dismiss my case because this is a matter of legality. It's not based on merit and they don't have power to make comment on the matter of law. And even if they do, it's insignificant, which is ignored anyway. It doesn't matter what it says. All it needs to go is sent dismissed and that was it. And I could have my hearing heard

at the court appeal. And so it took many, many weeks. So after 16 weeks, I was still waiting for that matter to be dismissed. So basically, my interpretation is the tribunal is not.

willing to release that judgment. And my barrister at the time said to me, Miley, they're not, they never got, this is the word he used. The tribunal never going to release your judgment. So let's not go to the court of appeal. Let's just go with this proceeding that's been initiated against me, the prosecution hearing. And I can, we can win on this one.

So hold on one second. So instead of what was the matter that they should have judged? What should the tribunal? So you've taken a matter to the tribunal and instead of them responding to it and saying, yes, you've got a point. They then went on their tack. They then started this prosecution against you to try and scupper your your own plans.

Not quite, not quite. So you remember how I had two matters. I had one matter got to the court of appeal and I wanted to have a second matter challenge. That second matter was before the tribunal and they all needed to do with the stamp. Okay, we've received it and we dismissed it and that was it so that it can be, it can be progressed to the next phase which is before the court.

Well, you know the words you just use that you said, I'm sorry for being so thick. You said the tribunal would do what? They would do what? They would accept it and then... No, so all it needs to do was to dismiss my kids. Basically... Why would they dismiss it? Well, they don't, because it doesn't matter what they say. They're insignificant because they're not a court. Whatever they say doesn't matter because this is a matter of law. It's judicial review, basically. Right.

But they had to do something. They had to do something. They had to acknowledge the received it. Yes. And then from that, that acknowledgement was enough then to take it to the judicial review. But they didn't acknowledge it. They dragged it through the mud. Four months went by. And in the meantime, they've launched a prosecution against you. Correct. That's it. You've got it. Finally, did you get that Roto? Roto, did you know all this?

Well, actually I'm learning as we go along because it is very complicated. It's very complicated. Many, many times I've met with Miley in the last, well, couple of years and we've had coffee together and I've thought, I don't know how she understands all this. You've done a degree in law now, as well as the

Yeah, you need to, honestly, for simple turns like us, you need to break it down so that we understand because you're saying things and I'm like, what does that even mean? So, okay, I've got it now. You took two issues to the court of appeal and the court of appeal said, actually, number one, that's fine. You've already taken it to a tribunal, whatever. Number two, you need to run it by the tribunal first.

Tribunal number and didn't acknowledge even point number two. They didn't stamp it and go, yeah, we agree. No, we don't agree. There was nothing. They just did nothing, which then meant you couldn't progress on to the court of appeal. You're just in limbo land. And while you're waiting in limbo land, they go, hey, we're going to attack you in the meantime. We're going for you.

Yes, that's it. Hallelujah. Hallelujah. That's it. And asking assholes. So, in the meantime, are they still not responding to point number two? Are they, are you not telling them, hey, what about point number two, when you're going to acknowledge this?

This is where I got really desperate because it appeared to me at the time that they were delaying or refusing to release the judgment on matter number two. In order for the healthcare complaints commission to quickly proceed with the prosecution proceeding, in order to cancel me, in order to finish me off at the tribunal, so that by the time I get to have my court of appeal, I hear and heard that I would be canceled.

Yeah, because if you're not a doctor, if you're not registered anymore, the court of appeal will be like, what was the point of your coming? That's too late. It's no utility.

Yeah, no utility. So you're using all these legal terms, no utility. Just say, yeah, just say, no, yes, God, you've really become a fucking lawyer, man. No utility. Jesus. There's no point. Basically, the lawyer would say, the judge would say, there's no point in that. It's too late. The horse is bolted. The horse is bolted. You don't have your registration anymore. It's too late. I can't comment on this. God, they're sneaky devils. This tribe, you know, fucking asshole.

Right, so listen, listen, right, let's talk about your your witnesses. Who did you have? Um, you had Pierre Corey. You had a few other people who are them. Who are they? What are their expertise? How did it go? And how did they make it difficult for your witnesses? My first witness was Dr. Altman.

Now, I don't know whether you know Dr. Oldman. Dr. Oldman's a PhD in pharmacology and he has been doing drug, he's doing and research, drug research for big pharma for like 50 years. And so he analyzed studies, started doing drug research in order to get drugs

approved by the TGA. So his, I believe his work for Pfizer before. And so that's his area of expertise and he's been doing that for 50 odd years. So when the issue of, when the vaccine came about, he was, he was, he helped the process, the approval process was done. And also he knew that I've imagined it was effective based on all the research that he's done over the years.

So he's been very vocal regarding the task force guideline and he's written an open paper challenging the sanity of what they've recommended. So he's not a doctor. Now I got him on board because I believe that he's

experience is very, very important in challenging the national task force like guideline in not recommending either make an asset a treatment of choice and an early treatment for COVID. So they put him on the stand on Tuesday and they gave this man a hard time. I mean, he's meant to be there for

45 minutes, but he was there for almost three hours. And while he was there, my other expert was waiting outside. And that was Professor Clancy. He was made to wait two hours, two hours. And he cleared his appointments and everything just to be there. And after he waited two hours and they finished with Dr.

Dr. Oldman, they put him on the stand, got him to swear, and then they said, caught, finished. And that's it. He didn't get to pacify. They just put him on the stand to swear in, and that was it.

What? Okay, hold on one second. Before we get to Clancy, why did they call Philip Altman a conspiracy theorist who believes in unicorns? Well, they were talking about discussing the issue of the why the TGA and other health experts did not believe in either medicine. And so Dr. Altman was trying to explain how

The people on the other side are very selective in what they want to consider in the body of evidence that

that the science behind Ava Meghten is overwhelming. And so he's trying to explain to them why these people in TGA and he'll, you know, he'll regulate us and doctors who's at the task force, why they couldn't see the evidence, but he could. So she's trying to say that

you know, he's looking for something that doesn't exist, essentially. So that was a constant, a constant sort of three, three hours is a long time. Yeah. A long time. And when when that person Philip Altman was up there, being the witness expert, who is asking the questions, the panel or the prosecution, or your buster? Both. But they think that

both the prosecutor and the tribunal members. In fact, all of the tribunal members participated in this, which are competing friends here. Yeah. It doesn't sound very fair to me. It doesn't sound like a normal. It's not fair at all. Like I said, it sounds like you went into a boxing ring with your hands tied behind your back with a blindfold put on. Kind of crazy. All right. OK, fine. And so what about this guy Clancy? Who's Clancy?

Professor Clancy is one of our most eminent doctor in Australia. So he's an immunologist. He's a professor of medicine and immunology. So he's really, how did I say, he sees highly knowledgeable in the area of medicine, in the area of vaccine. He's done research in respiratory vaccination with respiratory conditions and things like that. I mean,

He's been on John Campbell's show a number of times. I haven't actually followed off Clancy that closely. But I know that he's a highly knowledgeable man in the era of medical.

It says here in Wikipedia, he's currently treating people with vivomectin and oxygen saturation and all that kind of stuff. And like you said, he's got an immunologist, he's a doctor, he's got a PhD, he's a pretty smart guy. So what I want to know is,

Why is it that there's doctors who have used Ivermectin in Australia and are not being sanctioned and being dragged through the courts? And why are you being dragged through the court?

That's exactly my question. Did you ask that in the tribunal? No, I'm not. I'm not allowed to ask questions. Maybe you just should. Maybe you should just pipe up and go, excuse me, why am I here when all these other people have, you know, been using it and are not here? Yeah. Why don't you say that? I would. You can, you can imagine me. I wouldn't fucking could stay quiet.

Well, that's a very, very good question because there are about 5% of the group of doctors that I know that prescribe iromectin during the pandemic and still prescribe it now. So how many? About 5%. No, how many, like how many doctors do you know? Do I know? Yes, about 7 to 10. Okay, so you know, 7 to 10 doctors and are there any doctors who've been suspended for using iromectin?

a few. And what happened to them? The two of them have had this suspension lifted and the third one still suspended. So why did the other two have their suspension lifted? What was it about them that they prescribed I have a mechanism? Was there case any different from yours? I don't believe so. I mean, no, sorry. Yes, yes, yes, yes or no. I'm the judge now. Are there cases any different from yours? No.

So that's a good question. Is it a different jurisdiction, a different state? Yes, different state. Hang on. Yes, different state. OK, see, I'm trying to figure out why is it you are being singled out? Is it your ethnicity? Is it your state that you're in? Is it something you've done different? Because it sounds a bit weird. I don't know why they wouldn't answer the question.

But you didn't ask it. You didn't ask it, you said. Well, we could ask, not at the hearing, but you can put questions to them and things like that over the course of this challenge. But a lot of our questions were ignored. Like, who's John Smith? I mean, my lawyer did an exceptionally good letter to them and they ignored everything. They wouldn't give, they wouldn't respond to anything we asked.

And that's what we're dealing with. Here in the GMC in the UK, from my understanding from doctors who've been dragged through the courts and they tell me what the process was like, they never provide any information. They make you wait for ages, but then they write to you on a Friday evening and demand that you provide them with information within like three days.

So they've been sitting for six months doing nothing, but then suddenly you get a deadline on a Friday saying you need to give up us all this information in the next few days, otherwise you're in trouble. And so it's like double standards. They have all the time in the world and they give you no information. But then when they contact you, you're meant to respond double quick time and provide all the information. And if you're not, you're obstructing them and you get into trouble and more trouble and more trouble. And then

When it comes to witness an expert information, they decide what is allowed or not. They often will say, we don't have anything. You didn't submit anything. We don't know what you're talking about. There's nothing here. And you have actually submitted everything. You've sent everything and you confirm that they've got it and they go, yeah, yeah, we've got it. But then by the time you get to the tribe, you know, they go, no, no, we don't have anything. We don't know what you're talking about.

And then also when it comes to questions, they never respond to any questions. And there's no pressure for them to respond. They go, no, no, we're not talking about what you're talking about. But when it comes to asking you questions, you have to give a response. And if you don't, you get into further trouble because you're obstructing, you're being difficult, blah, blah, blah. Like I said, it's going into the boxing ring with two hands tied behind your back and your eyes blindfolded. It's fucking bullshit. Two standards.

They've got one law for themselves and there's one law for you, the doctor. This is, by the way, I'm talking about the GMC in the UK here, okay? And the whole thing is rigged. There's no difference here. It's exactly the same. Yeah, well, I thought so, because if you listen to my podcast with Bruce Dooley, he talks about the federal state medical licensing boards that were set up in 1912, just before, at the time of the flexing report and the central bank, it's interesting. It all happened at the same time.

and they also had this international medical regulatory agency and every fucking medical agency from Zimbabwe to Pakistan to Indonesia to New Zealand to Australia to the GMC, all are part of this umbrella network that's centered down in Texas. And they all go and meet once or twice a year. They all get told the same shit and they all get told how to regulate doctors, how to punish doctors and how to run their kangaroo course. It's basically one big mafia cabal.

It's a racket. And us doctors, we're just sitting ducks. And if we quack the wrong way, there shouldn't have been. So if they had it their way,

I would have been canceled a long time ago. In fact, from the day that the tribunal, at the tribunal here, well, at the initial hearing, the very first hearing, which was in October of 2021, I was told that I was indefinitely suspended and I was never to practice again.

Now, the medical council does not have power to do that at all. So they labeled me as being indefinitely suspended. Now, no one in Australia has been labeled as that. I always the only one, even Dr. Holbach was indefinite to suspended. And then

They told my insurance company that because I am being definitely suspended and I could never ever practice again. My insurance company used that as an excuse to force me into retirement. Of course they did. And they wouldn't fight for me. They wouldn't represent me. They wouldn't

provide legal assistance for me because they said that your prospect of winning is zero. You have a very low prospect of winning so we don't have to fight for you and you have to retire. That was in October, November of 2021.

Okay, that's a really good point. So I'm gonna come to that. Bev has just made a comment. Um, yeah, Bev, I'm quite good at this. So Bev goes one way point to that, so precise and so practical. I'm like, why aren't you in number 10 in place of automaton's armor? Go figure, because I'm not a satanic worshipping pedophile. So there you go. I think that's the reason why. I'm fucking a lot smarter than him, and I'm also a patriot, and I'd get all the shit done in one afternoon. I swear to God. But...

They don't want all the shit fixed, they don't want everything sorted, they want the evil to perpetuate, and they're not patriots, they're all captured and complicit. That's why I'm never going to be in number 10. But I would actually go, I'd work for nothing, I'd work for one pence, I'd work for one pence, and I'd fucking sort out all the shit, and I'd have a lot of

gallows up as well, actually. No, I'm being serious. I'd want justice. Right. Listen, going back to you, Miley. So look, this stupid fucking kangaroo court bastard. Right. So next step, this guy, Clancy, stand on and provide evidence or not. So on that Tuesday, he was sworn in and then the judge said court finishes. And that was it.

He had to go home. So what happened is that my, I mean, what I, what I was saying, what they were doing is that they were upsetting my expert witness. They were trying to give them a hard time so they'd never come back to. First straight, to create them. Okay. So he couldn't. And so what happened is that Wednesday came, they cleared every expert witness. They wanted to use the whole day to, to put me on the stand.

So instead of giving me chunks at a time when there was time available for me to testify, they wouldn't do that. And so even on a Monday, the judge was saying that, oh, you know, we don't want to prejudice Dr. Trin. We like her to do it, you know, put her on the stand and have a continuous period where she can testify rather than being sort of have a sort of chunks at a time.

And I thought to myself, well, what are you up to? Because I was thinking, because he kept repeating himself because my legal team was saying that we've got this hour here. Could we put Dr. Trent on the stand to save time and to get as much done as possible? But no, he didn't want to. So we finished an hour early on Monday.

And then on Tuesday, well, we finished at four. So the court starts the tribunal here and starts at 10, and it goes through four. And we have a morning tea, which is supposed to be 15, 20 minutes, but the first day it went for almost an hour. And then lunch goes about an hour, and it doesn't start on time. And so how many hours do you have left for the hearing?

This is the same with the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court Business High Court of Justice with Dr. Sarah Myhill. It was two days, 10 to 4, and it was complete obfuscation and bullshit. Just like you said, you started 10, and I've never been before. I wasn't intimidated, and I was like,

Is this it? Just sitting around just not like I'm surgical precision. I get my shit down. I'm organized. I'm efficient. And it was all bullshit conversation like, Oh, has this bundle been submitted? Is this bundle accurate? Can we talk about the numbering of the bundle? Have you got the same numbering as my bundle and bundle of bundle of evidence? Can I just check that the bundle bundle two, six, five? Is that what you've got?

Fucking an hour has gone by, and all we're talking about is fucking bundles. And what I want to hear is, should Dr. Sarah Maho be suspended or not, it's wrong that she's indefinitely suspended and what we're going to do about it. And instead, the judge is like, oh, you know, the bundles. I've told you guys when we submit the bundles to do it properly in the right order. And can I just check with you what bundles have you got? And if you guys got the same bundle, and they're like, what the...

like it's a comedy show. It's a fucking comedy show. Like, you're going to the high core of justice in London, right? Fucking ancient institution. And it's just a joke. It was a fucking joke. And I'm just like,

Oh my god! And they're getting paid thousands of pounds a day for this bullshit! So I have the bun- we've all got the same bundle. Motherfucking hallelujah! You've just spent 90 minutes deciding this shit.

It's fucking crazy. And yeah, it was just day two was just the exact same. And I was like, right at the end, in this day two, second in the afternoon, finally, we started talking about the nitty gritty. By the time my ass was fucking painful sitting on these hard wooden benches. And like, you know, in the back of stiff and I'm fucking like rolling around, I'm just, I just, I just did not understand what is this all about.

I should have brought it back to see. It's just complete. You're very good at driving. That was exactly. Do you know how many? Half year, half year in the world, you're having the same shit going on there, right? Yeah. You know the stack of papers?

There were about four or five bundles, but they stick and that I had to, you know, go through. So there's the evidence that they filed against me was 2,300 pages. Yeah. So you did a very good job describing that. That's why we laughing. It was exactly the same. You know how you talked about the GPs like Sarah faced with evil? Oh, the GMC rep guy. Oh my God. He was just sitting there like this.

Yeah, that's how they look. He just looked fucking miserable. Like, my god, like that's it. And like whenever the barrister for Sarah Myo would make a case and go look, he would just go like nod furiously with this ugly face. And I was like, Lord Almighty, what is your problem? These people are toxic.

You could just tell they wanted to destroy Dr. Sarah Myhill. And I can just imagine being in that tribunal kangaroo court. They just want to fucking crush you, Miley. They want to put that spirit on that aunt. And you know how when you swivel and just, you know, make sure that that's really that spider is properly dead. That's what they want to do to you. They just want to crush you and then really make sure they've done a good job and leave. And they're like, why are you still alive? Why are you still fighting back?

It pisses them off. They just want to finish you off. Yeah, that's exactly right. It didn't do it.

So they subjected me to a whole day of interrogation from five different people, from the four tribunal member and the prosecution. Surely that's not right. Surely the panel's job is to listen to the evidence and to then adjudicate and decide on the matter, not to directly interrogate you. No, correct. They're meant to be neutral. They're meant to be impartial. They're meant to...

They're meant to just clarify issues or make sure that the prosecutor doesn't always step. But instead, he roused at me.

I got angry with me because I was told that I could only answer yes or no. And that's it. It's either yes or no to the question. So hold on one second. When does a lawyer ever give you a yes, no answer? They're never expected to just go yes or no. They go, oh, but my lord, if you look at the matter and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. But when it's up to you, now you're told you just need to answer yes or no.

And you can be tripped up and trapped in a yes, no question. Correct. And I kept doing that the whole time. So I said, I said to the judge, you asked me to swear the like to swearing, to tell the truth, nothing but the truth. And I said to him, a yes or no answer is not the whole truth. So nice. Yeah.

So after that, he was much better to me because I really put it to him that I won't speak half-truth because I can't. I mean, you can't say yes or no, that's not adequate.

Shame on this judge, shame on this judge. Okay, one last thing I quickly remembered about your Ivermectin case. Were you the first doctor to be suspended over the Ivermectin issue? Timewise, were there any other doctor who got there before you? No, I'd say I was the first. Could it have been that they went for you to make an example of you, to shut everyone else up and stop them from prescribing Ivermectin so that they were vaccinated?

So there you go. See, we finally get there. Actually, I would make a good lawyer. So basically, what is special about you is you were one of the first ones, if not the first doctor to be suspended in Australia for using Ivermectin. You were their test case.

You're the wind that they bad. We got one. We got it. I should be. Actually, I never thought of that in that way that you've said it, but it is true. You're correct because the person that went after me, so the West Meat complaint came from the doctor who says toxicologist at West Meat Hospital.

And he's the one that went on television and radio to say that I have a McTinder's work and that people shouldn't purchase I have a McTinder's online because you know toxicity and overdose and he was talking about a case that he treated in accident emergency and he said that people shouldn't buy any sort of cure online and I have a McTinder's work and you all should go on.

have the vaccine. His story, the media, spun that story, and broadcast that story intensely. Every single media in Australia was broadcasting this for intensely for over three days. And seven days later, either Macdon was banned.

So they're definitely going for you. So they wanted to make a test case. Now, listen, one of the other things you're telling me about was this three million pound mansion, registered John Smith or whatever. Tell me about that. That was very interesting. Tell me about that. I probably shouldn't talk about that because that didn't come up. The evidence I had was not accepted.

So what do you mean evidence wasn't accepted? So I had a PI that investigated the matter. So private investigator. You had a private investigator, right? Investigating what matter? The matter concerning to John Smith and how who's John Smith and

And how is he and how is he a real person? Is he the C exists? And whether there's anyone behind the John Smith complaint because we could get any answers from the healthcare complaints commission. Can you get so basically just in case no one's heard the other podcast, someone called John Smith apparently made online complaint about you.

And the fact that you've treated several members and with ivermectin and the information that they used is information that no one could have other than a government body because they're looking at your prescriptions and that's confidential medical data. So unless it's a government agency.

This John Smith can't be any other person, can't be another doctor, can't be another patient or member of public because they're providing evidence that can only be obtained from confidential medical records and a government system. So you're trying to figure out who is this John Smith, that's funny name. They could have been a bit more original. What a bunch of idiots, these guys, whoever lodged the complaint, they could have at least pretended to make it into a name. But they've literally just called it John Smith, the most generic name you can get.

And you're struggling to find who this John Smith is and the tribunal medical cancer, whatever they are complaints commission. They're not giving you information about this individual. No, correct. They wouldn't. They said to me that they have the right to use anonymous complaint against me.

That is true, but my point with John Smith is that he's not anonymous. This complaint isn't an anonymous complaint. This complaint is from someone who's untraceable, who doesn't, who, who might not exist at all, because his email address bounces back. His telephone number doesn't call through and he doesn't have a physical address. Now,

In cases where this kind of situation exists, the Healthcare Complaints Commission cannot use this complaint against me because it's obviously fraudulent. It's obviously unsubstantiated and usually by law they have to discard this complaint. My point is that this complaint was presented to me as if it was real.

They never said anything about anything at all. It was me that investigating all these things that, you know, highlight the point that it's potentially fraudulent. And I told them, look, all these allegations are false and who's drawn Smith anyway? He's not contactable and they won't answer my questions. And the other big issue is that the prescription that was used in the complaint was the prescription

of a family member of mine and that prescription was taken by me to the chemist to have it filled and I left it at the chemist because they ran out of supplies. The chemist, when I got suspended, I will when I received the complaint from the Healthcare Complaints Commission. I went back to the chemist and asked them where was the prescription and they told me that it was handed over to our pro agent.

So it's a health care, it's a Australian health regulatory agency that took my prescription from the chemist. That prescription was valid. That was prescribed before I ever met and was banned. I did not break any law. And that prescription should not have been handed over to APO at all. Where does this John Smith and million pound mansion comes in? Where does that come into play?

So let's go back a little bit. So that prescription of my family member, John Smith, had it when he lost the complaint against me. He used that prescription as evidence against me. So that is the proof, so to speak, that he's saying that I know that's her. She's the one to prescribe, but here's the prescription.

Now, John Smith made a mistake. The only person that could have that prescription is a government agency because they took it from the pharmacy. Correct. So John Smith is a government agent. Yeah, well, I'm a fucking matrix.

Unless the healthcare complaint commission can prove otherwise, my deduction is that it had to be, it had to be from the health regulatory bodies, because there's other evidence to prove that it is true. So the mansion, I want to know about the mansion.

Well, I don't know whether the mansion is related, but I engage a private investigator to find out who John Smith is. And he said to me that the email address that was used in that complaint registered at an address that in an expensive part of town in Sydney.

So that address was the address of that mention where you were referring to. Now, I don't know whether this individual did make a complaint or not. I don't know. What I need to, I mean, the Healthcare Complaints Commission had to tell me whether the email address that was used was that email address. And because what happened is that when I use that email address, that John Smith email address, it bounces back

Okay, but do you know, do you know who the owner of that mansion is? Yes, I do. And do they have any ties to any of these medical regulators and medical bodies? Indirectly.

First of all, I have to qualify. I don't know whether this individual is linked, but I have to qualify because I can't tell a story that's half true because I don't know whether this person made a complaint or not because it's just like, you have an email address that anyone can just put your, because when they make a complaint, they can put down your email address and you could be from you.

It could look like it's from you, but you didn't make it complain. And this could be true in the John Smith issue as well. All I can say. But what is the indirect link? What do they do or what relationship do they have potentially with the regulators? Hypothetically. Hypothetically. Well, this individual

is investment banker. And this individual is linked. St Vincent's Hospital. What's St Vincent's hospital got to do with anything?

St Vincent's Hospital is a large teaching hospital in Sydney and it's a hospital that does an organ transplant and St Vincent's Hospital during the pandemic was pushing the vaccination. Okay. And do they get their funding from any big organizations? Well, this is what I find really interesting because

The National Task Force Guard Line received funding from this entity called the In Potter Foundation and also received the In Potter Foundation. According to St Vincent's Hospital website, they received funding from In Potter Foundation of the sum of two and a half million dollars for the hospital in Melbourne.

So my question is, why is the National Task Force receiving funding from a private entity? And it received money from a number of foundations, or number of philanthropic entities. And one of them is the Imposter Foundation. So I don't know, why can't the government fund this guideline? Why does it receive funding from a third party?

Yeah, okay. So this Ian Porter Foundation is a bit interesting. If you look at who it is, our people. Very, very interesting that our people hold on, Zach. So you've got several Kings Councils. That's interesting. So yeah, the Queens Council, Kings Council. So you've got a lot of that people in there. And you've got people who've worked with Rio Tinto. That's basically a Rothschild company.

Institute of Medical Research. I mean, there's a lot of high-powered people over here, by the way. This Ian Porter Foundation. Can you see the symbol of the sea? Do you know what's special about sea horse? No, I don't. What's special about it? It's a male that gets pregnant. Yeah, it is, isn't it? Why are you mentioning that? Why are you saying that? Walkism.

Right. Okay. Next, you know, the anonymous complaint. So basically, look, what you're saying about John Smith is it seems like a fictional character. No, it's not a real person. It's not a patient. It's not someone who you know is complaining. It's not a patient. We don't know who it is. No one's telling you who it is. But it potentially might be from this rich guy who is

So my daughter's just went one second, some rich guy, and linked to banking and something else. I mean, it's just a bit weird. So...

About anonymous complaints, you're not the only person who's had an anonymous complaint. I just want to quickly ask you guys, so I had an anonymous complaint as well, by the way, and several, several. But when the hospital provided us evidence and we actually didn't, I did a freedom of information request and to the GMC as well. And then the GMC sent me bundles of

like the correspondence that they got, and they redacted huge amounts. But there were some email names that I could see. And one of them was this fellow. And I want to ask you guys, do you know who this guy is? Do you know this guy? John C. Holmes? No! Wow!

Yeah, John C. Holmes is a guy that made my complaint. He has a Twitter account. There's a slight problem with this, guys. So, John C. Holmes is dead. Oh! Yeah, and look, and look what he was into.

Oh, lovely. Wow. Yeah. And look, exceptionally large. Yeah, look at this. Wow. So my complaint, one of my complaints was a Twitter account under the name of Johnny C. Holmes, who's known for his exceptionally large member.

And this hospital was taking this complaint so seriously that, you know, I got referred to the GMC and you know, and I subsequently got suspended by another hospital, you know, from a dead porn star. Tell me what other doctor out there in the world has been sanctioned by a dead American porn star.

I can't match that one. I can't compete with that one. That's another level altogether. Seriously, the main hospital that I've worked out of for 12 years suspended me because apparently I failed to notify them of a GMC investigation.

I told them that I wasn't, never was under GMC investigation. I was never notified by the GMC that I was being investigated. I was never notified by the other hospital that I was being investigated. They said, we're going to refer, I'm going to refer my concerns about you to the GMC. I went, yeah, fine, go ahead. And then I waited and I waited and I waited and nothing happened. And then six weeks later, I write to the GMC and like, is there a complaint about me? They wrote back. No, no, there's no complaint. Three months went by. And then the, so the second hospital goes, yeah, you know what?

You were referred to the GMC and investigate you failed to notify us like. I wasn't and there are yes you were this other hospital told us look they warned you they told you and you didn't tell us I went look there's no patient involved.

I didn't do anything wrong, right? That the GMC looked into the matter and said it doesn't warrant an investigation. I didn't have any of it. I've got a clean sheet, clean record for God's sake. Are you mad? Like, what's your problem? They went, no, we've kicked you out of the hospital permanently. You're not welcome back.

It's the same with me. I've never had a complaint made against me in 20 years or 30 years of my practice. And all of a sudden, I had two complaints on the same day, just hours apart. Why? You know, if the Health Care Complaints Commission is so smart with the investigation, that

in a self-speaks volume. They should look into the validity of both of those complaints. I'm asking, hey, if someone complained about me, fine, I'm ready to face them questioning or that. But not with a falsified complaint. I can't deal with that. That's just so wrong. It's wrong. They go after me based on a falsified complaint. Don't you think all of this system is rigged and they're all just Freemasons?

Yeah, I think so. I think that they can target any specific doctor they want. They just make up the complaint and the health regulators, even though the complaint's dodgy, they still investigate because they are complicit in the act. They're all complicit.

It's all law fair. Judiciary and legal process and due process and regulations have now been weaponized to punish dissenting doctors.

Correct. They specifically target. So if they want to get rid of you, they can get rid of you. They want to get rid of me. They can do that at any time. So this is my point is that this is how evil the system is, that the minute you are not agreeing with them, they just get rid of you and they not even shy about the way they go about doing it. It's so unlawful and they're still doing it. They are buff the law.

So why are you spending money playing in this rigged system? Good question. In order for me to fight, I get to expose the lie. I get to expose the fraud. And I want the Australian public and now international people from other parts of the world get to see what is the process that doctors like me being subjected to.

And I'm hoping that in the process, people would wake up. And I'm not sure. Like, listen, you've got an elevator pitch. You need to be quick. You need to be a bit more snazzy and snappy, mindy. I want to make a sure out of this. I want you to quickly so I can advertise and put it on my ex-account. I've got 195,000 followers. Listen, you've got literally one minute. I want you to get it off your chest quickly. What does the public need to know? What are doctors being subjected to?

The doctors have been subjected to unlawful persecution, unjust process, unfair, unjust process. They are subjected to ridiculous amount of law fair and they don't have any rights at all. There's not even human rights, let alone any legal rights at all. Why are you being subjected to this though? Why are doctors being subjected to this? Because they cannot have dissenting doctors, they cannot have

any doctors that that's speaking against either mate and speaking against the vaccine, because having an alternate voice is going to, it's going to invalidate what they are telling the public that the vaccine is safe and effective. And there's no treatment available.

And it's not just COVID vaccines. Basically, if there's any policy, any drug, any intervention that the government and big pharma want to promote, if a doctor speaks up against it, they're going to come for you. Am I right?

Yes, exactly right. So like the treatment of cancer, that's a big industry. They make a lot of money. Big pharma makes a lot of money because a course of chemotherapy is a few hundred thousand dollars, right? So they can't have a cure for cancer. So I heard that Dr. William Mackels is being attacked.

persecuted and that people want to send him to jail. I mean, why? This is the man who treated thousands of patients and cured them of our cancer.

So, right. Wow. I mean, 100% right. It's the biggest earning sector on ecological treatment. And of course, it's money. Why would they want to cure for cancer? And you just need to the look of the figures. It's gone from one in 50, one in 20, one in 10, one in five, one in three, one in tuna. It's a joke. I mean, the numbers, the stats tell you. Rosemary, are we missing anything? Do you want to add anything before we wrap up? I'd love to say something.

Professor Clancy wiped the smile off their faces, didn't he, my dear, where after all the accusations of unicorns and conspiracy theories, Professor Clancy stood there, he didn't have long, he only had 20 minutes, he's coming back to finish his testimony, but he just said, all the Western governments were captured by big farmer. He just chopped the whole thing up in one fell swoop, it was absolutely sublime.

So he got to come back on another day and give his test of money. That was the last person who spoke. So I hope all the people in the tribunal had the most hideous Christmas. I was standing outside the court, just give it, I do these little one or two minute videos. And I was standing outside the court, letting people know what had happened. And out sprang Molly and threw her arms in the air and the look on her face of absolute joy. She just said, I'm so excited. And it was a moment I won't forget.

Why did you end so jibilant? Why did you end so happy? What was it that made you so happy? That statement? No. So it's a summation of all that happened over the last four days prior. So it was very important to get vindication, which is that I've saved the patient's life.

And that came from their expert witness. The fourth day, they also dropped two charges against me, which was that I was two charges. One was improper conduct and second was an ethical conduct. What charges are left them?

Well, the thing is those two charges were not on a charge sheet. So the wording of those two charges were not on the complaint sheet. So I could only just surmise theorise that charges that they draw would probably get rid of the finding of practicing significantly below standard.

because it was not unethical and I'm not improper, then they can't make a finding of practicing significantly below standard. So then I'm only left with one, which is not complying with the Section 34A. So the Section 34A is a section where they compel me to produce, to surrender 20, 30 medical files of patients.

that I admitted to have prescribed other medicine for, and I didn't surrender to the patient's medical file because these are confidential medical information, and they didn't have the right to have them.

I believe at the time because they use a fraudulent complaint and they will go to create a third complaint against me by using all those medical files. So they can't do that. So I haven't discussed this before because this is the most traumatic part of my persecution. It's resulted in me having PTSD because I was threatened over and over that they were going to throw me in jail. They're going to subject me to

$22,000 fine if I don't give them all these information. I mean, we gave them as much information as we could, but the medical files, when they asked for it, I didn't have them anymore because I asked the patients that I've treated. Do you want me to? I said to them, the government wants these. Can I surrender to them? They said, no. So they all wanted their files back. And so I gave it back to them.

Because these people came from war-torn country, they were persecuted by the government, and then they subjected to a similar kind of persecution here. Because what happened that these people were living in the south-west of Sydney where

where there was prolonged lockdown and when you have COVID, you're not allowed to leave your house because there's an order that's made by the government that if you leave your house,

You're in breach of the law. They can arrest you and put you in jail. So every day you have police coming in check and seeing what you're at home. Every day until you're clear, until you're PCR negative. So these people were locked in their house for like 10, two weeks. And there was double standards. They weren't doing this to the welfare areas. I know this. So these people did not want their name and their medical files to be in the hands of the government.

Listen, listen, listen, I need to wrap up soon because my daughter's awake, my wife's actually at tonight at a Christmas dinner and I need to put my daughter back to bed. I'm sorry, I'm gonna have to wrap up now. She's just waiting for me and I've got so many things more that I need to speak to you about. But listen, what I'm hoping is all those

horrible people that were in that courtroom are going to go away, have a miserable Christmas. I hope the, I hope the ghost of Christmas past, present and future will come and visit them and haunt them. And I hope in the new year, they'll just be like, you know what, let's just drop everything. There's too many people who are watching us. You know, there's too many people around the world scrutinizing us. This isn't worth it. Let's just drop this one. What do you think, Miley?

Well, I don't know how they work because they're too able for me to consider how they think and how they operate. What I expect is a fair, I deserve a fair process. That's all I'm asking for. I'm asking the tribunal member.

to give me a fair process. First, I shouldn't be at this hearing in the first place, but now that I'm there, give me a fair process. Now, I have four besides Professor Clancy, there's three other expert witnesses are superb, and I couldn't wait for them to testify. Yeah. And have they testified or not yet? They haven't. Who are they?

So there's Dr. P who is a GP and a pharmacologist. He was the applicant for the GMO case. So he's the applicant in the case against Moderna and Pfizer and with loss because the judge said there's no standing. And this is a judge that did not disclose.

conflict of interest because apparently this linked to big pharma. The other doctor is Dr Lindsey, who's an American doctor. She's a pulmonologist and toxicologist. And then I have Dr. Pritchen. Dr. Pritchen is a GP and he won a huge case against the medical council in 2022. It's a huge case. But as big as Billie Bay, probably bigger.

in a different way, in the legality of the case was much, much better. So it's going to come back again. You're going to go back to court again some points in March, February, March. Correct. All right. Well, listen, we're rooting for you. And hopefully before the end, they'll change their mind and drop everything. You never know. They might just do that. Right. Listen, both of you, I love you loads and your warriors, both of you, you really are.

Mindy, I'm sorry you've had to go through all of this. You know, you're definitely a sword of God fighting these evil bastards. And Rodo, it's amazing having a good friend like you looking after her, you know, it makes all the difference. Right, he's got a lot of friends. She's got a lot of people who really love her and admire her. For her courage, she's got courage in space. She does. Thank you, Rosie.

Miley, but you are your warrior. We love you. You know that. I speak to you all the time. I love you, man. You're a good egg. Sorry, I was a bit pushing you in the beginning. I just wanted to get going, you know? It's fine. Yeah.

It's also people, you know, people do switch off nowadays. You know, an hour and a half is a long time to listen, two hours long time to listen. And you need to get people, you need to hook them very quickly and keep them. And I see the figures, you see, I look at the stats and if you're very slow to take off, people have to 20 minutes, 30 minutes drop off.

So the podcast that do really well, it's very engaging speakers who keep you, they grab you from the beginning and they hold on to you the whole time. Whereas if you're a slow burner, some people will stay with that. You know, like it's a book, you know, sometimes the first chapter, second chapter is really slow to get into. A lot of people just don't bother. They just put the book down. They don't read. Some people will

crack on through that. And then suddenly by the third fourth chapter, it's like racing. It's like, whoa. And it's just that's all I was trying to do. I was trying to just. No, I understand it. All right. I'm not experienced. All right. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not.

All right. Well, listen, I love you guys. Everyone, I love you. I hope you all have a great Christmas and you're all amazing. The people who are listening, I'm going to put this up for everyone to see. I think this is very important. You never know, even maybe the people in the panel and the judge get to watch this and go, Oh, shit. You know, so let's, let's do this. Because we had a lot of people witnessing what they did. So they, they know, they know what they were doing. People know what they were doing.

Let's keep the pressure on them. Just with regards to John Smith, I have to be careful because there was a spy at the hearing. Great. Of course it would be. So he was there for two days and I had to chase him out. So these are very powerful, rich and powerful people. Yeah. Well, stay safe. If anything happens to you, we know it's the evil motherfuckers, but listen, don't be scared of anything because you got God behind you. All right, remember that.

Don't be scared. Never be fearful. I'm not fearful. And they can come for me. It doesn't matter. Right guys, God bless you. Merry Christmas. Everyone's listening and watching.

I am a private civilian protected by the Geneva Convention. My sub-stack social media posts and podcasts are my personal experiences, observations and opinions. This information is for educational purposes only. Although I am a doctor, I am not your doctor and I am not providing medical or legal advice to you or to the wider public. I am not licensed or registered with the GMC or any other licensing board.

The responsibility for the interpretation, due diligence and use of the information from my sub-stack and my podcast lies with you, the viewer and or listener. Please do your research and use your your discernment. It is not my intention to harass, intimidate, offend, defame, conspire, blackmail, coerce or cause anxiety, alarm or distress to any man or woman. And the information presented here is done so with peaceful and honorable intentions. Enjoy folks.