Kelly slams petty, grubby display of malfeasance by Health Care Complaints clown show court

Former federal deputy Craig Kelly expressed disgust this week after sitting at a hearing of the NSW medical complaints commission regarding the suspension of Dr. My-Le Trinh for the alleged sin of prescribing the Ivermectin drug.

“I was in court yesterday to see this abomination of injustice. The whole process was a joke,” Kelly published in X this week.

Dr. My-Le was taken his medical license for the NSW HCCC and suspended four years ago for using his skill, knowledge and research in the analysis of the evidence mountain in favor of the use of Ivermectin. She prescribed the medication to a very sick Covid patient who recovered and survived.

“And the actions of Dr. My were completely legal and within the rules at that time, which allows doctors to prescribe medications approved outside label,” Kelly said.

“But in the war against Ivermectina, a criminal conspiracy of drug cartels to ensure that they could obtain the authorization of emergency use to benefit from experimental” vaccines “, anyone who saves lives with low cost and safe medicines had to be destroyed,” he said.

“And instead that the corrupt HCCC has to show that Dr. My acted so negligently that he should not allow him to practice medicine, the process is the reverse responsibility of the test, and Dr. My has to prove that it is not guilty.”

Kelly described the audience as a farce, with the HCCC lawyer spending considerable time trying to discredit an expert witness when arguing that there was a study on the Ivermectin of Egypt that had retired several years ago, despite the fact that this study is not included in the C19 meta -analysis of 105 other studies that found the effective ivermectin.

“And then, the expert witness of my le, was not even allowed to answer a question if the inclusion or exclusion of this study of a meta -analysis of 105 studies would make some difference in the entire evidence that shows that the ivermectin is highly effective, because the obvious answer is that it does not,” he said.

“Then a considerable period of time was taken trying to discredit the affidavit of Dr. My Le, because when fighting for his life and wanting to gather the better and more precise sworn statement, he made several paragraphs through a computer program to verify the spelling, grammar and the structure of the sentences.

“A member of the Court even made the surprising discovery that in the affidavit of Dr. My-some paragraphs had the abbreviation of the doctor written as ‘dr’, while others wrote him as ‘Dr.’ With a complete stop after that, and interrogated Dr. My-him about why it was so.

“The public gallery broke out in laughter, and a public member was expelled from the courtroom. And I thought that the persecution of the AEC of me for the source size of the authorization declaration was a joke.”

The doctor’s supporters say that the HCCC illegally began research on Dr. Trinh based on a fraudulent complaint and another complaint that lacked any legitimate base, as was done without the patient’s consent.

There is also significant evidence of collusion between the first plaintiff and the second fraudulent plaintiff. Despite this, HCCC researchers could not properly examine these fraudulent elements, but chose to ignore them when they were highlighted and continued with the investigation, then advanced with the prosecution.

When conducting research under false pretensions, HCCC has misuse its legal powers, violating the principles of procedural equity and natural justice. Despite knowing that the complaint was fraudulent, the HCCC invoked section 34a of the 1993 Medical Care Law (NSW) to force the production of information, documents and evidence, further aggravating its abuse of power.

The supporters said that this inappropriate use of section 34a allowed the HCCC to obtain information for an inadequate use in the manufacture of a third complaint against Dr. Trinh. While the HCCC had created a file number for a third complaint, there were no real complaint details associated with it.

It seems that the activation of section 34a was used incorrectly to force the production of documents, which were then used retroactively to manufacture a third complaint. This indicates that the HCCC did not have a legitimate complaint to investigate, but used the legal powers to generate the appearance of a legitimate case, further aggravating the abuse of authority.

These actions represent a clear violation of the legal procedure, since the powers granted under section 34a must be exercised in good faith and within the scope of legal investigations. By using a fraudulent complaint as the basis of its actions, the HCCC has acted ultra viés, in addition to its legal authority, which hires it susceptible to legal challenges, including judicial review.

This gross abuse of power undermines the credibility of the regulatory body and violates its duty to act fair and impartial. The inadequate escalation of complaints, driven by illegally obtained information, further highlights the procedural injustice faced by Dr. Trinh.

This HCCC conduct and its officials could be equivalent to misconduct, since they have not been able to maintain their legal obligations and have ignored the principles of justice and equity in their investigation.

This flagrant contempt for due process not only harms Dr. Trinh, but also threatens the integrity of the regulatory framework itself, questioning the responsibility of the HCCC and its adherence to legal procedures.