FORMER Federal MP Craig Kelly this week expressed disgust after sitting in a hearing of the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission in regard to the suspension of Dr My-Le Trinh for the alleged sin of prescribing the drug Ivermectin.
“I was in court yesterday to watch this abomination of injustice. The entire process was a joke,” Kelly posted on X this week.
Dr My-Le had her medical license taken away by the NSW HCCC and suspended four years ago for using her skill, knowledge and research in analysing the mountain of evidence in favour of using Ivermectin. She prescribed the drug to a very sick Covid patient who recovered and survived.
“And Dr My Le’s actions were completely legal and within the rules at the time, which allows doctors to prescribe approved drugs off-label,” said Mr Kelly.
“But in the war Against Ivermectin – a criminal conspiracy by the drug cartels to ensure they could obtain Emergency Use Authorisation to profit from the experimental covid “vaccines” – anyone saving lives using low cost and safe medications had to be destroyed,” he said.
“And instead of the corrupt HCCC having to prove Dr My Le acted so negligently that she should not be allowed to practice medicine – the process is the reverse onus of proof, and Dr My Le has to prove that she is not guilty.”
Mr Kelly described the hearing a farce, with the barrister for the HCCC spending considerable time trying to discredit an expert witness by arguing that there was one study on Ivermectin out of Egypt that had been retracted several years ago, even though this study is not included in the C19 meta-analysis of 105 others studies which found Ivermectin effective.
“And then the expert witness for My Le wasn’t even allowed to answer a question if the inclusion or exclusion of this study from a meta-analysis of 105 studies would make any difference to totality of the evidence that shows Ivermectin highly effective – because the obvious answer is that it doesn’t,” he said.
“Then a considerable period of time was taken trying to discredit Dr My Le‘s affidavit, because when fighting for her life and wanting to put together the best and most accurate affidavit as possible – she ran several paragraphs through a computer program to check spelling, grammar and sentence structure.
“One tribunal member even made the amazing discovery that in Dr My-Le’s affidavit some paragraphs had the abbreviation of doctor written as ‘Dr’ while others had it written as ‘Dr.’ with full stop after it, and she interrogated Dr My-Le as to why this was so.
“The public gallery burst into laughter, and one member of the public was thrown out of the court room. And I thought the AEC’s persecution of me over the font size of the authorisation statement was a joke.”
The doctor’s supporters say the HCCC unlawfully initiated the investigation into Dr. Trinh based on a fraudulent complaint and another complaint that lacked any legitimate basis, as it was made without the patient’s consent.
There is also significant evidence of collusion between the first complainant and the second fraudulent complainant. Despite this, the HCCC investigators failed to properly examine these fraudulent elements, instead choosing to ignore them when they were highlighted, and proceeded with the investigation, later moving forward with prosecution.
By pursuing an investigation under false pretenses, the HCCC has misused its statutory powers, violating principles of procedural fairness and natural justice. Despite knowing the complaint was fraudulent, the HCCC invoked Section 34A of the Health Care Complaints Act 1993 (NSW) to compel the production of information, documents, and evidence, further compounding its abuse of power.
Supporters said this improper use of Section 34A allowed the HCCC to obtain information that was intended for improper use in fabricating a third complaint against Dr. Trinh. While the HCCC had created a file number for a third complaint, there were no actual complaint details associated with it.
It appears that the activation of Section 34A was improperly used to compel the production of documents, which were then retroactively used to fabricate a third complaint. This indicates that the HCCC did not have a legitimate complaint to investigate but instead used the statutory powers to generate the appearance of a legitimate case, further compounding the abuse of authority.
Such actions represent a clear violation of legal procedure, as the powers granted under Section 34A must be exercised in good faith and within the scope of lawful investigations. By using a fraudulent complaint as the basis for its actions, the HCCC has acted ultra vires—beyond its legal authority—making 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 fairly and impartially. The improper escalation of complaints, driven by unlawfully obtained information, further highlights the procedural unfairness faced by Dr. Trinh.
Such conduct by the HCCC and its officers could amount to misconduct, as they have failed to uphold their legal obligations and have disregarded the principles of justice and fairness in their investigation.
This blatant disregard for due process not only harms Dr. Trinh but also threatens the integrity of the regulatory framework itself, calling into question the accountability of the HCCC and its adherence to lawful procedures.
