GongSteve

Twitter POLL: Over the last 100 years, who did more for democracy and peace? Was it all of our politicians combined or #JulianAssange? Please have your say and retweet.

In July 2024, it became clear to me that the Health Care Complaints Commission and the Tribunal were determined to push my hearing through regardless of my circumstances. At a directions hearing in March 2024, I submitted medical evidence from three practitioners confirming I was unfit to proceed and requested a three month adjournment. This was ignored and the hearing was fixed for 15 to 17 July. Because I was too unwell to represent myself, I engaged lawyers through my insurance. I was not allowed to speak to the appointed lawyer unless I paid a $3,500 consultation fee without the insurer present, so I had little choice but to proceed. I selected my own barrister, and because that barrister had previously worked with the insurer, my choice was accepted without issue. Over the next four weeks, working with this legal team became the most stressful part of my case. I did not trust them. A short adjournment was briefly granted to allow preparation, then reversed two days later, returning to the original July dates. The strategy I was given was deeply concerning. I was advised not to respond to the allegations, not to defend myself, and not to take any position, effectively leaving the Tribunal to decide my fate without contest. I was also told not to defend my use of ivermectin or make an issue of it, as it might upset the Tribunal. After weeks of work, and with only two weeks before the hearing, I had nothing prepared, no affidavit, no evidence, and no expert witnesses. I dismissed the legal team. A second lawyer was then introduced, claiming he could obtain an adjournment despite not understanding the basic timing requirements. By that point, I had already engaged a private lawyer to submit an adjournment application within time. The HCCC strongly opposed the application, but the reality was that I had no prepared defence due to the failures of the insurance appointed lawyers. The adjournment was ultimately granted and the hearing was moved to December 2024. The HCCC later added a second expert witness, while I had six. From that point onward, there was a clear shift in my ability to defend myself. After engaging my own private lawyer, I was finally in a position to properly prepare and present my case.

Tony was a great support to me during a very stressful disciplinary hearing before the Tribunal. I am deeply grateful for his friendship and support.

He was a truly special friend, and I feel so grateful to have known him. His kindness, warmth, and the memories we shared will always stay with me. He will be deeply missed, but never forgotten.❤️🌿

A private investigator I engaged in 2024 regarding the "John Smith" complaint has since been employed by the HCCC. I do not allege any wrongdoing. 🌸🌿

Post 7 — When a referral becomes a “complaint” At one point my lawyer asked the HCCC a very simple question: Where is the Medical Council complaint? Because none had ever been served on me. The HCCC responded in a letter dated 21 April 2022. In that letter they made two claims. First, they said we had already been notified of three complaints in their letter of 3 December 2021. That is not correct. The 3 December letter only identifies two complaints: • Westmead Toxicology Service • “John Smith” There is no statement in that letter that the Medical Council had made a complaint against me. Second, the HCCC said that the Medical Council complaint was the document titled “Reasons for Suspension” dated 8 November 2021. This is where the legal issue arises. Under section 150D of the National Law, when the Medical Council suspends a doctor under the emergency powers in s150, the Council must refer the matter to the HCCC for investigation. That step is called a referral. The legislation then says the HCCC must deal with that referral as a complaint. But that wording matters. The law does not say the Medical Council is making a complaint. It says the HCCC must treat the referral procedurally as if it were a complaint so it can investigate the matter. Those are two different things. A referral triggers an investigation. A complaint is an allegation made by a complainant. Yet in the HCCC’s letter, that distinction seems to disappear. The referral itself is presented as the complaint. That is not what the legislation says. A short story In July 2025, just before I was about to represent myself in my closing submissions, a lawyer contacted me and offered to help pro bono. We spoke for about four and a half hours. During that conversation he repeatedly tried to convince me that under section 150D, the Medical Council could simply make a complaint against me. After that conversation, I went back and read the legislation again myself. And my understanding of the law was very different from what I had just been told.

Run, death is near!’ – recommended by your Covid-19 Taskforce, the same guidelines I am being accused of not following. However, Judge Levy said on the first day of my hearing that a guideline is a guide, not a mandate. On that first day, during cross-examination of the HCCC’s expert witness, I asked my barrister to question whether I had saved the patient’s life, but he refused. My jaw dropped when Judge Levy asked the question, and the expert confirmed that my treatment did save the patient’s life. I was vindicated on the very first day of the hearing. Thank you, Jesus, for using the judge and the expert witness to vindicate me.

Corruption in high places. Therese Cameron speaking at Sydney Town Hall, 2026-03-13 youtu.be/0n4xo0tsbLM?si… via @YouTube

Was there a cover-up? ‘John Smith’ carried out part of the fraudulent actions, yet these could only happen because of the way the Medical Council and the HCCC managed the complaint process.

The Missing Ivermectin Script: How Did It End Up in the “John Smith” Complaint? One of the unresolved issues in my case concerns an ivermectin prescription belonging to my family member that later appeared in the complaint against me. When the prescription could not be located at the pharmacy, a complaint was made to the Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC). In its initial assessment correspondence, the HCCC wrote that: “the script for ivermectin was confiscated by AHPRA as part of their investigation.” But during the later review of the complaint, the HCCC admitted there was no basis for that statement and wrote: “The review has noted that the initial assessment correspondence did not appear to have any basis for asserting that the Ivermectin prescription had been seized by AHPRA… We apologise for this error.” So why did the HCCC initially tell me that AHPRA confiscated the prescription? When I wrote to AHPRA, their reply was equally revealing: “Ahpra has no record of having received the prescription… prior to it being attached to the ‘John Smith’ notification on 27 September 2021.” So the obvious questions remain: Who removed the ivermectin script belonging to my family member from the pharmacy? How did John Smith obtain it from the chemist? Under what authority was a confidential prescription handed to a third party? Why did the HCCC not investigate this potential breach? And why would the HCCC allow a prescription taken from a pharmacy to be used in a complaint against a doctor with an impeccable record without ever determining who obtained it or how John Smith came into possession of it?

Correction: The date previously stated as 8 November 2021 is incorrect. The correct date is 10 November 2021, twelve days after my suspension, the Medical Council sent this internal notice to the HCCC.

The document the regulator never wanted me to notice When I was brought before the Tribunal, there were three large piles of documents — thousands of pages. Buried among them was one document that was never explained to me. The image below is an internal communication between the Medical Council and the HCCC. It was created to satisfy the legal requirement under section 150D, which requires the Medical Council to refer a matter to the HCCC for investigation if they decide to refer a practitioner for investigation. Here is the timeline: • 27 October 2021 – I was suspended by the Medical Council. • 8 November 2021 – Twelve days later, the Medical Council sent this internal notice to the HCCC. In the image: (1) These are the file numbers of the two original complaints that triggered the hearing: 21/07312 and 21/07321. The numbers are very similar and easy to mix up. (2) This is a different file number — 21/07861. This is the Medical Council’s own complaint. (3) This section shows the referral pathway: “S150D – Investigation.” This confirms that the matter was formally referred to the HCCC for investigation under section 150D. What this document reveals is something very important. Internally, the Medical Council recorded that the two original complaints had effectively been converted into a new complaint — the Medical Council complaint (21/07861). This appears to have occurred on 8 November 2021. But here is the problem. The Medical Council complaint did not even exist before this date. It was not until December that they attempted to communicate something to me, but without explicitly stating that the Medical Council had made a complaint. Then, in April of the following year, they finally admitted that the Medical Council had made a complaint. However, the complaint itself was never served on me. Instead, they later claimed that the document titled “Reasons for Suspension” constituted the complaint that had been served on me. In reality, that document was simply the notice explaining why they had suspended me. What was never disclosed to me was that the two original complaints had effectively been replaced by a new complaint made by the Medical Council itself, making the Medical Council the sole complainant in the matter. This was a critical fact. The Medical Council had just adjudicated the two original complaints and suspended me indefinitely. Yet internally, those same matters were transformed into a complaint made by the Medical Council itself and referred to the HCCC for prosecution. In other words, the body that had already judged the matter had now become the complainant. That is precisely the kind of situation the principles of natural justice are designed to prevent. I only discovered this document years later, while going through thousands of pages of material filed in the Tribunal. And the most extraordinary part is this: The third complaint (21/07861) is the complaint I am now being prosecuted for. On the top right-hand corner, the “Outcome” field lists (21/07861, 21/07861) — the file number of that third complaint. Is this the proof of their misconduct?

For almost two years I was told that complaints had been made against me. What I was not told was who the real complainant was. In August 2023 I finally received a letter from the Director of Proceedings at the Health Care Complaints Commission informing me that, after consultation with the Medical Council, they had decided to prosecute me before the Tribunal. But the letter did not disclose something critical. The Medical Council itself was the complainant. Three members of the Medical Council had already judged my case and suspended me. What I later discovered was that they had also generated a complaint against me. That complaint was never properly served on me at the time. Months later the HCCC confirmed it would prosecute the case after consulting with the same Medical Council. There were no patients complaining about my care. Instead regulators examined prescribing data relating to ivermectin. They then seized my patients’ medical records directly from the medical centre without notifying the patients or obtaining their consent. From those records they constructed six disciplinary allegations against me. The prosecution was authorised by the Director of Proceedings at the HCCC, the senior legal officer responsible for deciding whether the Commission should formally prosecute a practitioner before the Tribunal. In other words this office acts as the prosecutor in disciplinary proceedings against doctors. The sealed complaint filed against me contains six allegations drawn from those records. They relate to my prescribing of ivermectin and other medications, my treatment of a critically ill COVID 19 patient, and my care of several patients including family members. The Commission is seeking cancellation of my medical registration and costs against me. The only reason I eventually realised that the Medical Council itself was the originating complainant was because of the file number at the top of the prosecution letter. That number corresponds to the complaint generated by the Medical Council. This raises a serious question. Can a regulator secretly become the complainant, investigate the doctor, and then partner with another regulator to prosecute the case, all without clearly informing the practitioner who the real complainant is? After nearly four years of this process the public deserves to know how this happened. Who Is More Guilty, The Doctor or the Regulators? The HCCC is supposed to be a model litigant. 🤔

@myletrinh123 I would suggest leaving out the word 'More'. The Doctor, in this case, was not at all guilty. It would, therefore be more appropriate to ask: Who is Guilty, the Doctor or the Regulator?

Good informational video on what happens when the straight of Hormuz closes. It closed yesterday.

Correction: Where I previously wrote “board member of St Vincent’s Hospital,” it should say Advisory Board of the St Vincent’s Clinic Research Foundation.

When John Smith carried out the alleged act, he failed to redact the Medicare number. As a result, I was able to identify and trace the prescription, as I was the person who delivered it to the pharmacy on the day it was issued. A pharmacy assistant informed me that the prescription had been handed to an AHPRA agent. However, AHPRA later denied any knowledge of the prescription. Rather than investigating the alleged fraud, I became the subject of investigation and was accused of treating family members. I lodged a complaint with the HCCC on behalf of my family member, but it declined to investigate. Consequently, I had no choice but to raise my concerns publicly. I subsequently received an anonymous complaint regarding my public post about the ivermectin prescription, alleging that I had failed to redact the Medicare number and thereby breached privacy obligations. However, the same Medicare information had previously been disclosed without redaction by John Smith and the HCCC, as the prescription had already been circulated to multiple parties, including lawyers, tribunal members, and expert witnesses. In these circumstances, the action taken against me appears fundamentally unfair, as it seeks to hold me accountable for conduct arising from the very disclosure made by others in relation to the same matter. The anonymous complaint against me was subsequently dropped.

Because Johnny did not have a known address, we served the summons as “known to AHPRA”.

My legal team and I filed a total of five summonses, only one of which was approved by the Tribunal. That summons required ‘John Smith’ to appear, but he did not attend. By contrast, the HCCC sought four summonses, all of which were approved. Three were later withdrawn as unnecessary. The critical summons, however, sought production of all communications between me and six of my expert witnesses over a period exceeding three years. This summons was approved by a Tribunal member who had previously declared a conflict of interest and granted it before ultimately recusing himself, although he noted he would not have done so unless we requested it. At the time, the barrister representing me advised that the member was a “good” judge and recommended against requesting recusal. Unexpectedly, the very next day, the judge decided to recuse himself. The barrister and I parted ways shortly afterward.

It didn't go as well as I would have liked, but that wasn't unexpected. The institution was attempting to manage the situation.